[Mezla PigDog]

No my point was that if you throw resources at solving something as widespread and wrong as domestic abuse and the causes behind domestic abuse and you potentially solve a lot of other more eye catching problems too. Domestic abuse shouldn't be seen as just a problem for women, it is a problem for everyone. Violent men hone their craft at home before they take it into the open.

[Andorion]

worry, on 06 August 2019 - 05:43 AM, said:

@Ando: Don't take this as counterargument so much as riffing on what you said, please, cuz I don't disagree with a lot of your post.

It's true that the issue is multi-faceted, and we're unlikely to pinpoint a single 'cause' for it all, but I don't necessarily think that's the same as complicated or difficult. Especially when it comes to the biggest, most sensible early steps. A more holistic and honest view of societal health in this country would be a welcome blessing. Tragically, at least here, whenever these kinds of things are trotted out, they are 1) empty rhetoric; and 2) deliberate distractions.

For instance, you're right that 'mental health' gets brought up every time there's a shooting. But the GOP aren't interested -- not now, not ever -- in funding mental health care. And besides, people with mental illness are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators (whether it's self inflicted violence or otherwise), and the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by people without severe mental health issues. Socio-economics is definitely a factor for some violence, but you'll note that focuses squarely on people at the bottom of the rung -- like, what about the socio-economic causes of Lockheed Martin and Boeing doing violence? Anyway, when it comes to these making-a-point mass killings, it seems misogynistic and right-wing sociopolitical motivations appear to dominate, by a landslide. Toxic masculinity and white supremacy are global phenomena, of course, but neither qualify as mental illness I would think, and though they lead to horrific practices the world over too, mass shootings perpetrated by domestic abusers (for instance) are still largely a U.S. phenomenon by orders of magnitude.
It's fair to say that without studies, it's guesswork. Fortunately, there have been studies -- many -- and what they show is that more guns = more violence.

So while I 100% support the holistic, thoughtful, answer-seeking view you're advocating, while we're doing that, let's also study whether gun control measures work, and to what degree -- via gun control legislation at the federal level. Let's do that, give it a shot, and study what works that way.

I absolutely agree that the US needs better, more comprehensive gun control legislation. Along with that, because you are not going to get very far with an Australia style gun buyback program, the US needs far more comprehensive gun safety regulation including heavily monitored gun safety courses and periodic mental health checkups.

Having said that, I think there also needs to be a very comprehensive, long term strategy to tackle basic social issues. Its not just about mental health - you give mental health care to those who need it, but the question needs to be asked, why do they need it? There has been a massive increase in anxiety, depression and suicide cases. In my country youth suicide is through the roof and no one is talking about it. This is the core issue - not just how you treat mental health problems but why are there so many to begin with?
In sociology, there is a concept called social capital. I am not very familiar with it but it seems to me that more and more sociologists are arguing that social capital is required to ensure general happiness. They are linking social capital with a more healthy and interaction based life which is quite antithetical to the isolated competitive lifestyle that is prevalent everywhere.

Unless such concepts are given some space and the fundamental underlying issues addressed, you are not going to get any long term benefits.

I think this applies both to right wing views and domestic violence. What socially alienates a person enough for them to embrace ideologies of hate, be it race, gender or religion based hate?
What causes a person to try to assert himself via violence?

[Andorion]

Cause, on 06 August 2019 - 09:23 AM, said:

Mezla PigDog, on 06 August 2019 - 08:27 AM, said:

There is a stat I read somewhere that said most of the UK home grown Muslim fundamentalist terrorists had committed domestic violence before they went on to blow people up.

I don't think this indicates much except that most Muslim terrorists will be strict believers in Islam. I think domestic violence is more common than we generally realize. The Japanese who I don't consider to be violent or particularly good examples of toxic masculinity have domestic violence in 1 in 4 households. Until a few years ago it was 1 in 3 (the government has made it a huge policy to tackle). Its more of a cultural hold over from their past, 'its acceptable', than it indicates deeply hidden violent tendencies waiting to boil over.

_____________________________________________________________________

OMG, I'm dying. After trump sent his prayers to both cities who were victims of mass shootings within days of each other I saw someone ask if that was a real treat. Someone sarcastically said it cant be trump because he got both cities correct. Now I see Trump gave a tweet or a speech where he got one of them wrong.

I think this is a conversation that requires more mainstream space. There is a fundamentally conservative, patriarchal streak in Islam that puts it at odds with the West. While the religion has often been woven deeply into the fabric of amazing societies like the Moorish kingdom in Spain and the Caliphate of Baghdad, from the 18th century onwards as a consequence of the Wahabbi movement, it is principally conservative and this lends itself very easily to misogyny.

[Gorefest]

worry, on 06 August 2019 - 06:24 AM, said:

Mezla PigDog, on 06 August 2019 - 05:26 AM, said:

There is a fundamental thing people don't tend to talk about with these mass shooters - they are all men. Male violence has to be up there as a root cause doesn't it?

Speaking of! I just read this, which addresses this head on, if all too briefly. It includes discussion of a preventative program (in a California state prison) that combats these destructive notions of manhood and has a pretty good track record. It's the kind of preemptive, not-tunnel-visioned idea Ando was talking about in his post, I think.

Hrm, I always get kneejerk reactions when I see the name Jessica Valenti pop up. She writes columns in the Guardian as well. And she manages to turn absolutely everything into a male mysogynist item. Although I'm sure that there is relevance to it, she often drives this concept into the absurd.

[worry]

@Gorefest: I'm afraid I have the opposite reaction to Jessica Valenti's name, and have on the whole enjoyed her writing. I think there's a misconception of what she's doing, if you're breaking it down to the determination of whether something is misogynist or not. It's not like there's a pregnancy test-like binary Yes/No answer to most things. It's more about the lens through which you study something, feminism being one of them because patriarchy is the status quo. We're all swimming in it and affected by it, just like any other pervasive phenomenon. You can explicate the same events or media through a feminist lens, a racial justice lens, another sociological lens, a literary lens, a scientific lens, etc, and the point isn't necessarily to diagnose it one way or another (though that can be fun in more blatant examples, of course) so much as examine or reveal how these (often unconscious) forces seep into things -- with the goal of being mindful/corrective in the future.

@Ando: Re: Islam, there may be a fundamentally conservative, patriarchal streak in Islam, but how does that put it at odds with the West? Which was manifestly built on patriarchal imperialism, white supremacy, plunder, and violence. What are settler colonialism, or the White Man's Burden, or even fascism, if not conservative and patriarchal?


Regarding 'social capital' that's interesting. And like you say, there are many contributors. But I would argue that toxic masculinity has done a serious warping factor that affects even other contributors (I mean, they all overlap, it's fair to say), thus having an oversized contribution to both male aggression and depression. "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." That's for sure. And that feeling of oppression, however divorced from reality, has consequences -- perhaps more so when confused for or conflated with real oppression (eg economic ones -- consider "man of the house"/breadwinner identity). There's a heavy effect on men not getting their way, being frustrated by life's challenges that others (having never been promised that privilege) take in stride or at least recognize, and society at large is paying the price. As men -- in the US, typically (but not always) white middle class men -- attempt to reassert this worldview that has them on top, the fallout is mega-destructive in general and for women, LGBTQ, non-white people in particular. In Japan, domestic violence as described above has its through-line to toxic norms, legacies of masculinity and femininity modern life obsesses over on one hand and challenges in the other. There are other consequences, which you see infused in much hentai, or the self-isolation of men (which is a culture-specific kind of incel, as far as I can tell).

@Mezla: In the US, it's worth noting, that at least 40% of police families/households suffer domestic violence and most go without discipline at work. There's also a pretty striking intersection between police and gun violence/homicides that go without consequences. At the same time, the GOP (at the state and the federal level) opposes any restrictions on gun sales to known domestic abusers. Republicans voted against the Violence Against Women Act in huge numbers for this very reason, thanks in part to NRA lobbying. What this says to me is that not only are they not interested in keeping guns out of the hands of proven dangerous men, not only are they disinterested in preventative measures to save women's lives AND help the men who do these things, they are indifferent (at best) to whether it gets even worse. The American conservative answer to all of this is: this problem doesn't exist, and when an SJW brings it up, it's because they want to take even more away from you.

This post has been edited by worry: 06 August 2019 - 08:20 PM

[worry]

[Andorion]

@worry - the key difference between Islam and western societies is that from the 18th to the 20th centuries the West underwent a key transformation that changed its very nature - it formed the concept of a civil society. This is a really funny concept - a space for discussion and dialogue which is conceptually separate both from the State and from the Church. The Enlightenment and the truimph of liberalism made this possible - England, Scotland and France were transformed first, and what this meant was that there was a socio-cultural arena which had never really existed before.
Was this arena often conservative, racist, and patriarchal? Yes. But this mattered less in the long run, because once you have built a stage, then others can try to take that stage. This is the arena where Mary Wollstonecraft announced her Vindication of The Rights of Women in. This is the arena where you could have discussion about race and religion as a society. This is the arena that would be stormed by the Suffragists, and the Civil Rights movement. Once you have an arena, everyone can try to find a place there.

But, this basic secular innovation did not happen in Islam. The concept of "secular" is alien there. This also holds true for many non-Western, non-islamic societies - like in India the secular liberal group is a very small and not very powerful class, and to be honest we even exist because of the British colonial rule.

That is why in most Western countries, you can publicly violate one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity - blaspheme the holy spirit and you will get dirty looks, maybe some verbal abuse. But if you try the same in an Islamic country, you may be subject to physical abuse and even suffer legal consequences.

[worry]

That strikes me as perhaps partially true, but draws the line between the "West" and the rest of the world rather thick, don't you think? You'll have to forgive (or not! your choice!) that I am further away from my historical studies than you are, and haven't retained as much as I should have. I will say, in a broad sense, I do like the idea of an arena once-built -- with seats for all, however unintended (while the cynic in me thinks of the Colosseum, Ozymandias, etc.). That said...would it not also be fair to suggest that this arena -- due to the aforementioned conservatism, racism, and patriarchy (not to mention imperial & eventually hypercapitalist interests) of the West at that time -- was also exclusionary and ultimately supremacist? And that these qualities stymied or outright oppressed 'others' in their potential participation in this transformation, up to and including the 20th and even 21st centuries? And also denied and whitewashed contributions from those 'others', including the Islamic world, to the building of that arena? None of that is to deny the internal factors of conservative renderings of Islam, or internal oppression from systems of power in the region. Just to say the West didn't do it alone, for all its protestations to the contrary (including White Jesus), and doesn't have clean hands anywhere on earth when it comes to who's still outside the arena.


On a wholly other note, I thought this was interesting on the notion of the 'lone wolf':

[worry]

Patrick Blanchfield (a very good journalist/writer) has a book coming out called Gunpower that looks to be very interesting. Luke O'Neil interviewed him about his take on guns in America (unfortunately some is behind a paywall -- but a good amount is on the free site):

[Andorion]

worry, on 07 August 2019 - 05:31 AM, said:

That strikes me as perhaps partially true, but draws the line between the "West" and the rest of the world rather thick, don't you think? You'll have to forgive (or not! your choice!) that I am further away from my historical studies than you are, and haven't retained as much as I should have. I will say, in a broad sense, I do like the idea of an arena once-built -- with seats for all, however unintended (while the cynic in me thinks of the Colosseum, Ozymandias, etc.). That said...would it not also be fair to suggest that this arena -- due to the aforementioned conservatism, racism, and patriarchy (not to mention imperial & eventually hypercapitalist interests) of the West at that time -- was also exclusionary and ultimately supremacist? And that these qualities stymied or outright oppressed 'others' in their potential participation in this transformation, up to and including the 20th and even 21st centuries? And also denied and whitewashed contributions from those 'others', including the Islamic world, to the building of that arena? None of that is to deny the internal factors of conservative renderings of Islam, or internal oppression from systems of power in the region. Just to say the West didn't do it alone, for all its protestations to the contrary (including White Jesus), and doesn't have clean hands anywhere on earth when it comes to who's still outside the arena.


On a wholly other note, I thought this was interesting on the notion of the 'lone wolf':

Several points:
Firstly, good point about Islam and the Enlightenment. I think several of the philosophes would have felt quite at home in Harun Al Rashid's court or in Cordoba. That junction has in fact been marginalized. But what becomes ever more important is that many of the greatest innovations in Islamic thought never made it to the modern age. ideas of syncretism were marginalized by the hardliners, often systematically. In India the Emperor Akbar tried to establish Din - i Elahi, a new religion based in Sul-i-kul the union of the best of many religions. It did not survive his death. The Sufi saints in the Bengal frontier came up with startling egalitarian religious notions that blurred the border between Islam and Hinduism and created a separate sphere of folk belief. This was systematically eradicated in the 19th and 20th centuries by Wahabbi agitators.

Secondly - the arena - yes, initially it was racist, sexist, and exclusionary. It was supremacist and imperialist. But it did not stay that way. That is the nature of the arena. Other groups come in and they speak out. So slavery was opposed. So Wollstonecraft "vindicated" women. MLK dreamed in this arena. That is the nature of this discourse - it lets others in, because when the pendulum of history swings, the only way to keep them out of the arena is violence. And after nazism, violence means the admission of loss. So Karl Marx could compose Das Kapital sitting in 1850s London, the beating heart of global capital though Germany would not tolerate him.

The importance of the arena lies in its existence. It is a space you can fight for, and fight in. The battles never stop, you never really win, because at the end of the day capitalism is the endgame boss, but you can fight. Ideas of debate and discussion have existed in most cultures, but in very few has this space been mobilized in as active a way as it has been in the modern West.

Oh and the West most definitely does not have clean hands. It has perpetrated genocide in 4 continents and come pretty close in a 5th. But the West has also brought things that are good and worthy of praise. So now the #metoo movement can have the space to call out abusers. The same thing would not be possible in many Islamic societies. Saudi Arabia recently removed the male guardianship constraint on female travel and that is being hailed as progressive.

[worry]

I do appreciate the promiseful nature found in your arena metaphor, and hope it becomes ever more inclusive, and ever more progress is made. I'm not very compelled to accept a West vs. East (or Other, or Islam) delineation that doesn't break down under scrutiny, and I definitely don't agree with the implications of that word "initially" re: the West's worst qualities -- but at the same time I wouldn't deny that progress has been made because people have fought for their place in the arena, or that the existence of the arena is itself vital. And also won't deny that powers that be have been resistant -- and have stamped out -- the foundations of this arena where they could in order to eliminate opposition to their power, and that includes various (ultra)conservative Islamic states. But ultimately, I don't think where we disagree matters as much as where we agree. You're arguing it's the arena's existence that matters most -- because it's inherently pro-tolerance, pro-inclusion, and pro-progress, regardless of its (self-styled imo) makers' limitations -- and to that, again, I say cheers.


On another note, referring back to my earlier question re: trauma, this popped up for me this morning and made my heart sink a bit:

[Tsundoku]

Shooting at a mosque in Norway. None hurt there, but looks like the (young, white male) shooter may have killed his sister earlier.

https://www.news.com...fcac9a2c2c8437d

What are Norway's firearm laws like?

EDIT: a quick google reveals this:

"Norway is in fact in the top ten countries in the world when it comes to guns owned per capita. the country sits in tenth place with about 31 guns per 100 residents." https://www.lifeinno...ship-in-norway/

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 11 August 2019 - 11:52 AM

[Cause]

Is it true Walmart is pulling down video gMe advertisements in stores but still sells guns?

[worry]

Yes, they are temporarily taking down violent game ads, signs, and demos in the stores. Emphasis on the temporarily, as they are not even particularly committed to the feint.

[Tsundoku]

Thank goodness I live where I do ...

https://www.news.com...4cb118b7dccfbe5

[Aptorian]

Tsundoku, on 13 August 2019 - 08:33 AM, said:

Thank goodness I live where I do ...

https://www.news.com...4cb118b7dccfbe5

That could have been prevented if the victims had all been armed with knives.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 13 August 2019 - 10:20 AM

[Cause]

Aptorian, on 13 August 2019 - 10:17 AM, said:

Tsundoku, on 13 August 2019 - 08:33 AM, said:

Thank goodness I live where I do ...

https://www.news.com...4cb118b7dccfbe5

That could have been prevented if the victims had all been armed with knives.

I think there is a famous saying actually, bring a gun to a knife fight to ensure victory.

[Malankazooie]

[worry]

^^^100%

[Nicodimas]

Remember the bad guy will always have the most viable arm. There goal is to inflict as much harm as possible..

The anti-freedom crowd aim in always to strip you of as many choices as possible.

Who represents who?