How Unspeakable Evil Becomes A Spectator Sport

[Fresno_Layshaft]

Well to my absolute shock, this horrendous crime has religious motivations. This boy was full of demons!!!

Posted by HMKgrey:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

[bks]

Nathan28 wrote:

If you think people would have complied with the Milgram experiment after having just attended a lecture by a Hannah Ardent (sic) scholar on Eichmann in Jerusalem, you'd be utterly wrong. And FWIW, it's justifiable homicide, maybe even in California, to kill someone attempting murder. Erich Fromm pointed out that while Milgram's 37 complied, most of them left the experiment in near-nervous breakdowns.

Nathan: I would caution that having knowledge of the Milgram experiment is no guarantee against the perils of obedience. I've often feared that I would act like one of Milgram's lemmings in the same situation, even though I know better. It's not a problem of knowledge, it's a problem of emotional attitude, and my emotional attitude toward authority in close proximity to me is, well, not what my rational self would have it be.

Directly after a lecture, yes, I'd be more likely to resist. But how about six months after the lecture? Much different story, as Milgram's own experiment demonstrates (the binding factors really tell the story of obedience).

Regarding this terrible story: When I told my fiancee the details, she thought for a moment and said, "I'd bet money that meth was involved".

[nathan28]

Psyops media is used to distract, numb, and desensitize the average American to be morally disengaged from suffering resulting from national policies-poverty, war, etc.

Is an orchestrated psy-op necessary if the dominant ideology is already one of apathy?

Maybe it is my background and the frustrations therein, but it feels wrong to me to ask anyone to look at things that are unpleasant. Most people lack the education to contextualize things, or worse, they live in "public fantasyland," where brown people with laptops in caves plot our deaths and many other after-the-fact speculative explanations. People think conspiracy theory sounds crazy, but just listen to the average non-conspiracy theorist's political theories and it's just as bad. You can't ask people living in ignorance or delusion to look at things. I'm talking about people with college educations here, too. I remember sitting in classrooms with a lot frustration, thinking, some of those people are destined for leadership and they're dumber than a box of bricks.

That, and what's to say that if and when they do, when they contextualize and integrate whatever fact, that they won't do it in some other narrative? While we bemoan the inhumanity of this demon-possessed madman, there are plenty of others sitting in smug satisfaction over their belief in the death penalty: the question is already opened and closed for them, ergo, no need to explore it. I hate to quote Alex Jones, but it's Problem-Reaction-Solution. Some man kills his child so we execute him. 3000 people die in building collapses under very suspicious purposes so we invade a couple countries. We dump too much carbon in the air so let's privatize the money that would go to the public via EPA fines and call it "carbon trading." Have a solution ready on hand and the problems are already open-and-shut.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Psyops media is used to distract, numb, and desensitize the average American to be morally disengaged from suffering resulting from national policies-poverty, war, etc.

Is an orchestrated psy-op necessary if the dominant ideology is already one of apathy?
.....

The Office of War Information became America's Ministry of Truth and Culture back in 1942.

We are living the results of 66 years of psyops culture which has been a "catastrophic success."

So this line that "nobody cares so why bother?" is irrational for ignoring history, sort of like saying "why would the Pentagon spend money on weapons? Nobody is invading the US."

[nathan28]

The Office of War Information became America's Ministry of Truth and Culture back in 1942.

We are living the results of 66 years of psyops culture which has been a "catastrophic success."

So this line that "nobody cares so why bother?" is irrational for ignoring history, sort of like saying "why would the Pentagon spend money on weapons? Nobody is invading the US."

Fair enough. I'd say that once you've won a battle in the culture war, though, it'll be a generation before you have to worry about it again. That, and I do subscribe to the theory that culture will reflect the dominant ideology in economics and politics more than economics and politics will reflect culture. There is a lot of inertia behind social sentiment, and "they" know that.

[8bitagent]

Well to my absolute shock, this horrendous crime has religious motivations. This boy was full of demons!!!

Posted by HMKgrey:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

Sounds like this sick fuck dad was the one "posessed".

Funny how the dark side of Christianity in Africa allows people to mutilate children, because their "witches" or "posessed"...while in other parts of Africa child sacrificing blood drinking militia men connected to the Kenyan government run rampage.

[blanc]

2 possible explanations for not wanting to know about bad things
- such knowledge hurts and such knowledge requires engagement

[posting tulpa]

McKain said Aguiar responded, "I'm not going to prison," and when he raised his middle finger, Ramar fired.

Wow That was just like something out of a movie

But seriously, Aguiar and crime aside, do you think this is justifiable for the officer to shoot him in the head for this response? Kinda makes Officer Ramar sound like Judge Dread esp w/ the choppering in.... "Judge and Jury"

Why not wound him, even seriously i.e. leg, shoulder, gut etc, but at least you could question him.

You could also render tox screens much faster....why is that btw? I know of several ways to obtain results in as little as 1 hour on a living person. Why does it take a month+ for ANY evidence whatsoever on a dead one?

[Fresno_Layshaft]

But seriously, Aguiar and crime aside, do you think this is justifiable for the officer to shoot him in the head for this response? Kinda makes Officer Ramar sound like Judge Dread esp w/ the choppering in.... "Judge and Jury"

Why not wound him, even seriously i.e. leg, shoulder, gut etc, but at least you could question him.

You could also render tox screens much faster....why is that btw? I know of several ways to obtain results in as little as 1 hour on a living person. Why does it take a month+ for ANY evidence whatsoever on a dead one?

I've heard dozens of times that police officers are supposed to "shoot to kill" when drawing their weapons. And it makes perfect sense when you think about. You don't want cops shooting to negotiate or playing target practise in standoff situations. They should only use lethal force as a last resort. Shoot to kill.

[erosoplier]

They use a taser when a hand around the elbow will do, and a bullet in the head when a taser will do.

And the response is:

"Thankfully a cop shot him to death..."

Talk about moral disengagement.

[OP ED]

They use a taser when a hand around the elbow will do, and a bullet in the head when a taser will do.

And the response is:

"Thankfully a cop shot him to death..."

Talk about moral disengagement.

call it what you want, I suppose. I'd have shot him. And I wouldn't have even asked for his surrender first.

[erosoplier]

I'd have shot him, probably, if I'd had a gun, which thankfully where I live I wouldn't have. But my intention wouldn't have been to kill him.

But the point is it's all too late once the dude has beaten his kid to a pulp. The really interesting questions are what made him do it? and what could have prevented him from doing it? (Drugs or no drugs, I suspect a likely answer to the second question is "a thorough overhaul of social norms and values").

Worrying about what's to be done with him after he goes off the rails is a bit like health professionals spending all their time deciding what kind of coffin their dead patients should have.

[OP ED]

I'd have shot him, probably, if I'd had a gun, which thankfully where I live I wouldn't have. But my intention wouldn't have been to kill him.

But the point is it's all too late once the dude has beaten his kid to a pulp. The really interesting questions are what made him do it? and what could have prevented him from doing it? (Drugs or no drugs, I suspect a likely answer to the second question is "a thorough overhaul of social norms and values").

Worrying about what's to be done with him after he goes off the rails is a bit like health professionals spending all their time deciding what kind of coffin their dead patients should have.

Everyone has a gun where I live.

And I agree with regards to the preference for dealing with psychological problems before they become death statistics. Indeed, were I king of this world, I'd make routine quarterly psych-evaluations mandatory as part of universal health care. For most of us, this would resemble nothing more than an opportunity to vent frustrations at a semi-stranger. But it could help prevent this sort of incident.

Having said that, I'd think any sane person with a gun, who encountered someone squishing a baby would probably shoot first and ask questions later.

If you're gonna shoot someone, kill them. They can't sue you that way.

[erosoplier]

If you're gonna shoot someone, kill them. They can't sue you that way.

I see you've thought this through far more thoroughly than I have.

Having said that, I'd think any sane person with a gun, who encountered someone squishing a baby would probably shoot first and ask questions later.

But seriously, what sane society should expect it's citizens to be psychologically comfortable, not only with bearing arms for the purpose of self defense, but with using them with lethal force for the purpose of law enforcement/life preservation should the opportunity to do so happen to arise? There are other ways of doing things, other ways of living, for crying out loud! I mean, what need should a man have for a weapon when he is inside the city gates?

A guy tramples a child to death = "yeah, that's why people should be allowed to bear arms! So we can shoot the guy in the head while the child lays dead at his feet!"?? I see the connection, but I don't see that the connection leads to a desirable future. We choose where the lines are drawn, or else other people choose for us. We don't allow land mines in the suburbs. Smart move huh? But because nuts - absolute nuts - are still running the world, the manufacture and sale of landmines has not been outlawed. It's a similar situation with guns, that I can see. It's all a matter of degree. Plenty of places around the world get by just fine with a complete prohibition on the carrying of any kind of concealed weapon. And the vast majority in those locations never want for a concealed weapon. Strange huh?

But anyway, I wasn't expecting this to turn into a discussion about gun control.

[Horatio Hellpop]

Having said that, I'd think any sane person with a gun, who encountered someone squishing a baby would probably shoot first and ask questions later.

Really? Cause there's a lot of insane Christian fundies who are locked up just for doing that.