Shiftless2
Well-known member
That still doesn't explain what your claim that "schools are too oppressive, demeaning, and dictatorial" have to do with him shooting up a school (that he wasn't attending).
Uvalde - the followup
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
I can only guess as to what specifically motivated the school shooting, however, I personally do find schools to be oppressive, demeaning, and dictatorial, so that came to mind.
I know that some who go to schools that I did not attend, have vastly higher incomes that are not necessarily warranted by their level of skill or intelligence.
So there is also that sense of injustice, that might actually be better described as envy?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
From 2 years ago
jeal·ous (jĕləs)
adj.
1. Fearful or wary of losing one's position or situation to someone else ...
Usage Note: Traditional usage holds that we are jealous when we fear losing something that is important to us and envious when we desire that which someone else has. In this view, one might experience jealousy upon seeing one's spouse flirt with another (because of the fear of losing the spouse), while one might experience envy upon seeing a friend with an attractive date (because of one's desire to have an attractive date of one's own). In common usage, this distinction is not always observed, and jealousy and jealous are often used in situations that involve envy. Our 2015 survey shows that the distinction is alive and well: large majorities of the Usage Panel approved the traditional uses of jealousy (She was jealous when she saw her husband having dinner with another woman) and envy (He was envious of the expensive sports car his neighbor bought), while only a minority accepted the switched uses: 29 percent accepted envious for the suspicious dinner, and 34 percent accepted jealous for the expensive sports car. The last figure does mean, though, that a third of the Panelists accept jealous meaning "envious," and an even larger minority (43 percent) accept it when the entity being coveted is a person rather than an object, as in Never having been popular myself, I'm jealous of your many friends. It is evident from these results that many careful writers prefer to see the distinction between the two words maintained, with jealous being reserved for situations where one fears losing something and envious used for situations where one wants what one does not have.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
That story is potentially far more complicated than it superficially appears.
Stockholm Syndrome for obvious example.
None the less, with a minimum of inference, it's a grim reflection on the childhood we provide.
The increase in irrational violence, such as schools shootings, road rage, presidents illegally attacking other countries, etc., make one wonder if we have contaminated the food chain with chemicals that are mentally destabilizing.?
There are so many potential causes. Surely contaminated food / air / water must be among them.
Also on the list in my opinion, sociological differences.
A stone-age clan member would know each individual in his own clan,
and would innately understand he has a reputation to protect.
It's an entirely different story in a 3rd millennium metropolis.
A.I. facial recognition might help nail them on a murder charge.
But fleet-footed purse snatchers may have low risk of consequence.
Of course one possibility is that violent movies may have desensitized us into ever greater degrees of actual violence?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
But other countries have those same violent movies and they don't have the gun problem that the US does.
Interesting way to start my AM, thanks x 2.
may promote violence among one population subset, simultaneously discouraging it within another.
If so it's a quibble of what the net affect is. I'm not sure we can accurately generalize about that, as our standards seem to meander over the decades, the generations.
"Copy-cat" crime, the obvious example here. Some police departments have reported a crime or M.O. introduced via entertainment TV or newspaper report
resulting in similar crime soon thereafter.
We should avoid over-simplification here.
Guns may seem to be an obvious determining factor. Not necessarily.
There may be other elements of culture which both distinguish U.S. from them, and
cause the carnage here, and not there.
That may include such seemingly otherwise innocuous factors as how the homeless are treated,
whether a citizen in trouble naturally believes society can be a benefit to them, or an antagonist.
Will government find them a resting place in a homeless shelter, or a jail cell?
I have virtually no formal ed. on this, but w/ decades of applied statistics seems to me exceedingly implausible that among a population of hundreds of millions, it wouldn't affect some. But,
may promote violence among one population subset, simultaneously discouraging it within another.
If so it's a quibble of what the net affect is. I'm not sure we can accurately generalize about that, as our standards seem to meander over the decades, the generations.
This Cavett quotation is not a metaphysical certitude. It's a quip. It's worth integrating into the broader analysis, but not determinative on its own.
"Copy-cat" crime, the obvious example here. Some police departments have reported a crime or M.O. introduced via entertainment TV or newspaper report
resulting in similar crime soon thereafter.
Switzerland is a common example.
We should avoid over-simplification here.
Guns may seem to be an obvious determining factor. Not necessarily.
There may be other elements of culture which both distinguish U.S. from them, and
cause the carnage here, and not there.
That may include such seemingly otherwise innocuous factors as how the homeless are treated,
whether a citizen in trouble naturally believes society can be a benefit to them, or an antagonist.
Will government find them a resting place in a homeless shelter, or a jail cell?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Switzerland has compulsory military service for able-bodied men, and conscripts are traditionally issued a service weapon that they keep at home. It is not a requirement for every household to own a gun, and soldiers can choose to store their weapons in army depots instead. While owning and storing guns at home is common, carrying them in public is heavily restricted and requires a separate carrying permit.
And the culture is very different in other ways - the Swiss are generally very law abiding - cross against a red light, even when there are no cars in sight, and you will get a lot of weird looks. And so forth.
Having the same movies available, does not mean that people watch them in other countries.
When I look at the Internet, some of the fake AI videos are so incredibly violent that I have to shut them down.
Kids may not.
I think we should have higher censorship standards.
Many countries do.
Comedy shows likely do cause more comedy on the street.
But the degree of police violence in the US is beyond that of anywhere else.
But then the point is that it is not the presence of guns that makes the US so dangerous.
There is something else that make people so prone to using the guns.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
I'd agree, at least to a point.
Two things come to mind (using Canada as an example)
Canadians think in terms of rights while Americans think in terms of freedoms.
The second comes from a comment a friend of mine made - he'd managed both the American and Canadian arms of his company. He said that when you addressed Canadian employees and told them why certain initiatives were being taken you could say that the company would benefit as a result. When speaking to American employees you had to explain that this would help "you" (i.e., the employees, not the company)
Shiftless2
Well-known member
That could have some implications.
First of all, domestic abuse is not a felony, and can be subjective.
Second is that it puts soldiers, police, hunters, and security guards out of work.