The more that comes out about the alleged killer of Charlie Kirk, the less sense it makes. I don't trust most of what I'm seeing, so I have updated my earlier blog post to reflect the increased doubt, and I'm waiting for additional reporting from a wider variety of sources.
What's out there at present is not internally consistent. The majority of perpetrators of this kind of high-profile attack show a great deal of cognitive dissonance, beliefs that don't sort out as neatly as most people's -- just as this type of crime is uncommon and twisted, so, too, are the minds behind them. Hunger for nihilistic fame remains a common factor, but if you were looking for "why" and hoping to find some handle you could turn down or even off, that's not much help.
Update
9 months ago
4 comments:
And sometimes, one has just got to take the L that the person or persons doing the horrible thing is on "Their Side"- is an Us, not Them.
To quote PTerry: "It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things"
Thing is, the people who commit these crimes are often not a clear "us" or "them." Their politics, if any, are most often gibberish. You can, at best, point to inclinations.
It's human nature to want it to make sense, so much so that a way will be found, correct or not.
It's an 'I want versus what is best' decision that led to this. And the same decision tree leads to a lot of sub optional decisions by humans. That's why a robust system has checks and balances. Stupid and wicked people look for a way around the checks and n balances to get the 'i want' outcome.
Post a Comment