Is it terrorism? or Hate?

[DanieltheDragon]

This week 3 people were gunned down who were all Islamic in Chapel Hill, NC. An Islamic center was burnt down in Houston.

Considering these are isolated events. The question still remains is this terrorism or a hate crime? Was the intention to cause fear or was the intent to kill or vandalize out of hatred? or Both?

[Goat]

I think it wasn't so much terrorism as one guy being totally nuts. He hated all religions. He sounded like he hated everyone too.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

Aren't they the same thing?

[bluethread]

Hate crimes laws are silly. All they are is a way to introduce bias into the law. The laws already include malice clauses.

[TSGracchus]

People break under stress. This frightens us. We don't want to admit that we can break too, so we demonize those who break, blame them, and call them evil. Most of us have some weaknesses, and under the wrong stimuli we will break too. We don't want admit that.

We have evolved to respond to violence with violence. In a small hunter gatherer group this makes sense, but in a world where there are billions of individuals trying to cope with stresses that we did not evolve to deal with violence is inevitable and violence will call forth more violence. Call it "justice", or call it "vengeance", it still puts more stress on the society and prevents any rational response to the underlying problem.

If we are to survive as a species, then we must stop thinking with our adrenal glands and gonads and start thinking with the anterior cingulate cortex in our frontal lobes.

[bluethread]

If we are to survive as a species, then we must stop thinking with our adrenal glands and gonads and start thinking with the anterior cingulate cortex in our frontal lobes.

Well, the frontal lobes are at the perifary of the brain and are layered on top of the amygdala and hypothalamus, that control the fight or flight responses. These responses can be regulated to some extent. However, they can not truly be subordinated. So, I doubt what you are proposing is really going to happen. Also, since evolution is proposed on a millenial time scale, at best, it is not something that we can really count on as a solution.

Regarding our survival as a species, I would put my money of the amygdala and hypothalamus, because survival is what they were made for. Sure, those with higher thinking skills can navigate life better. However, when it gets down to it quick violent response will win every time. That is unless one were to take supernatural factors into account, which I gather is not a consideration for you.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 6 by bluethread]


bluethread : "Well, the frontal lobes are at the perifary (I think he means "periphery".) of the brain and are layered on top of the amygdala and hypothalamus, that control the fight or flight responses. These responses can be regulated to some extent.

The frontal lobes are indeed the last parts of the brain to evolve and develop. They are what separate us from other species, they are what makes us "human". Of course, some are more human than others of us, and some are just hairless chimps, unable to control their impulses. It is not a matter for blame or guilt, but is still a real problem that must be dealt with if the species is to survive.

Control of those irrational impulses, does take practice. And it requires that you recognize the possibility and the desirability of the effort.

bluethread : "However, they can not truly be subordinated."

Of course they can. For instance, my impulse might be to hunt you down, slowly and painfully dispatch everyone you care about in front of your eyes, and them feed them to you and let you wallow in the excrement. But, I can control the impulse, even though it might result in a "better" species of human, by culling the herd. Still, as Nietzsche noted, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

bluethread : "So, I doubt what you are proposing is really going to happen."

Your doubt is noted. Might I suggested it is self-serving, in that it rationalizes your impulse to consume more than what is really your share of resources? After all, the amygdala doesn't care if too much is not good for you, it merely reacts to the evolved response to scarcity. And so, to the amygdala, enough is never enough. That is why so many Americans are obese. And that is why the wealthy are never wealthy enough.

bluethread : " Also, since evolution is proposed on a millenial time scale, at best, it is not something that we can really count on as a solution."

Actually, evolution can be quite rapid. We can, and and almost certainly have, taken our own own evolution into our own hands. Directed evolution can result quite rapidly in actual speciation.
Do we want to become and be ruled by sociopaths or become and be ruled by empaths? Inquiring minds want to know.

In his book, A Primate's Memoir, Robert Sapolsky recounts his observations of a troop of baboons who gained access to a garbage dump. This dump could provide food very easily, but only the most dominant and aggressive males were allowed access. Alas, the dump was infected by a form of tuberculosis that could only be transmitted by eating infected meat. All those aggressive dominant males died. Strangely enough, the level of aggression in the surviving troop dropped dramatically. Even new males joining the troop learned to be more peaceful. So, maybe if we eliminated all the sociopathic capitalists ...? Would the ends justify the means? Can we sign you up to make the sacrifice for a better, (less miserable,) world?

bluethread : "Regarding our survival as a species, I would put my money of the amygdala and hypothalamus, because survival is what they were made for."

They were not "made" for anything. They evolved as a result of environmental and social conditions. Changing environmental and social conditions can render them detrimental to survival. We can feed everyone if the greedy don't sequester more than they need. The computations have been done: For the cost of WWI we could have fed, clothed, housed, educated, and provided medical care for everyone in the world. We could still do that. But those who cannot overcome their impulse to grab more than they need and defend it by force prevents a less miserable (Same root as "miser"!) world.

bluethread : "Sure, those with higher thinking skills can navigate life better. However, when it gets down to it quick violent response will win every time."

Not every time. After all, there are, for instance, no real winners in war, only those physically, intellectually and emotionally maimed monsters who survive.

bluethread : "That is unless one were to take supernatural factors into account, which I gather is not a consideration for you."

I see no reason to factor in the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, or leprechauns, except as indications of delusion, which does indeed have an effect on reality. "Spirit", after all, is from the Latin meaning wind, breath or flatlulence, and it is still just so much breaking wind.
I believe that those who cannot be cured of such harmful, delusional impediments should be humanely segregated and provided with plenty of coloring books and non-toxic crayons, and prevented from contact with children. Deprived of the genes and examples of the most aggressive members of the species, we might find peaceful and empathic methods to deal with human misery, as they make the journey from birth to death.

[bluethread]

The frontal lobes are indeed the last parts of the brain to evolve and develop. They are what separate us from other species, they are what makes us "human". Of course, some are more human than others of us, and some are just hairless chimps, unable to control their impulses. It is not a matter for blame or guilt, but is still a real problem that must be dealt with if the species is to survive.

Control of those irrational impulses, does take practice. And it requires that you recognize the possibility and the desirability of the effort.

I'm not sure how much survival experience you have, but, when the pressure is on the baser instincts kick in. Also, as that great philosopher Erwin Corey once said, "you can get more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word." The point being that being rational does not preclude using violence.

bluethread : "However, they can not truly be subordinated."

Of course they can. For instance, my impulse might be to hunt you down, slowly and painfully dispatch everyone you care about in front of your eyes, and them feed them to you and let you wallow in the excrement. But, I can control the impulse, even though it might result in a "better" species of human, by culling the herd. Still, as Nietzsche noted, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

Yes, from the comfort of the penthouse, one can even resist less extensive impulses. However, the abyss is not as far away as one would think. On the street level the monsters tend to come without warning, and one must react on instinct.

bluethread : "So, I doubt what you are proposing is really going to happen."

Your doubt is noted. Might I suggested it is self-serving, in that it rationalizes your impulse to consume more than what is really your share of resources? After all, the amygdala doesn't care if too much is not good for you, it merely reacts to the evolved response to scarcity. And so, to the amygdala, enough is never enough. That is why so many Americans are obese. And that is why the wealthy are never wealthy enough.

Oh, we are talking about economics? I thought we were talking about violence. At least that is what you were talking about in the post I was responding to.

bluethread : " Also, since evolution is proposed on a millenial time scale, at best, it is not something that we can really count on as a solution."

Actually, evolution can be quite rapid. We can, and and almost certainly have, taken our own own evolution into our own hands. Directed evolution can result quite rapidly in actual speciation.
Do we want to become and be ruled by sociopaths or become and be ruled by empaths? Inquiring minds want to know.

In his book, A Primate's Memoir, Robert Sapolsky recounts his observations of a troop of baboons who gained access to a garbage dump. This dump could provide food very easily, but only the most dominant and aggressive males were allowed access. Alas, the dump was infected by a form of tuberculosis that could only be transmitted by eating infected meat. All those aggressive dominant males died. Strangely enough, the level of aggression in the surviving troop dropped dramatically. Even new males joining the troop learned to be more peaceful. So, maybe if we eliminated all the sociopathic capitalists ...? Would the ends justify the means? Can we sign you up to make the sacrifice for a better, (less miserable,) world?

You do like to argue the extremes. What makes you think that I am a "sociopathic capitalists"? Is it that you think all capitalists are sociopaths, or is it that I recognize the nature in man that Nietzsche spoke of. By the way, who gets to define what is the perfect society and thus who is sociopathic?

bluethread : "Regarding our survival as a species, I would put my money of the amygdala and hypothalamus, because survival is what they were made for."

They were not "made" for anything. They evolved as a result of environmental and social conditions. Changing environmental and social conditions can render them detrimental to survival. We can feed everyone if the greedy don't sequester more than they need. The computations have been done: For the cost of WWI we could have fed, clothed, housed, educated, and provided medical care for everyone in the world. We could still do that. But those who cannot overcome their impulse to grab more than they need and defend it by force prevents a less miserable (Same root as "miser"!) world.

So, are you prosing a clockwork orange? How is it we are going to implement this, since violence is not an option.

bluethread : "Sure, those with higher thinking skills can navigate life better. However, when it gets down to it quick violent response will win every time."

Not every time. After all, there are, for instance, no real winners in war, only those physically, intellectually and emotionally maimed monsters who survive.

I guess win was a bit simplistic, what I meant was prevail. As to what follows depends on, as Ben Franklin said, "if you can keep it".

bluethread : "That is unless one were to take supernatural factors into account, which I gather is not a consideration for you."

I see no reason to factor in the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, or leprechauns, except as indications of delusion, which does indeed have an effect on reality. "Spirit", after all, is from the Latin meaning wind, breath or flatlulence, and it is still just so much breaking wind.
I believe that those who cannot be cured of such harmful, delusional impediments should be humanely segregated and provided with plenty of coloring books and non-toxic crayons, and prevented from contact with children. Deprived of the genes and examples of the most aggressive members of the species, we might find peaceful and empathic methods to deal with human misery, as they make the journey from birth to death.

As I said before, you do seem to have a flair for the extreme. A "correct" would have been sufficient to restrict this discussion to natural forces.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 8 by bluethread]

bluethread: "I'm not sure how much survival experience you have, but, when the pressure is on the baser instincts kick in. Also, as that great philosopher Erwin Corey once said, "you can get more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word." The point being that being rational does not preclude using violence."

Well, I'm 75 years old so it's a long story. In any case: It is precisely when the pressure is on that it is important to think clearly and not to act on the first impulse. (Irwin Corey was a comedian. He wasn't really the world's greatest authority.)
Violence may be necessary if there is no time to think, but your violent response may earn you a bullet, a beating, a prison sentence or even a hangman's noose if you just react.

bluethread: "Yes, from the comfort of the penthouse, one can even resist less extensive impulses."

I'll have to take your word for it. I have never even been in a penthouse. (Not even an ivory tower!)

bluethread: " However, the abyss is not as far away as one would think. On the street level the monsters tend to come without warning, and one must react on instinct."

Indeed, the abyss is always there. It is wise to consider your steps and, certainly, you should look before you leap.

bluethread: "Oh, we are talking about economics? I thought we were talking about violence. At least that is what you were talking about in the post I was responding to."

Actually, I was writing about impulse control. It is possible with practice, harder if you aren't used to it.

bluethread: "You do like to argue the extremes."

I fully appreciate nuance, but extremes make for clear exposition.

bluethread: " What makes you think that I am a 'sociopathic capitalists'?"

I don't think it is necessarily the case that you are. You may or may not be based on the information available to me.

bluethread: "Is it that you think all capitalists are sociopaths, or is it that I recognize the nature in man that Nietzsche spoke of."

Not all capitalists are sociopaths, only the most efficient and successful ones.

bluethread: "By the way, who gets to define what is the perfect society and thus who is sociopathic"

I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect society. My guess is that society is always a work in progress, or else degenerating into anarchy. There is no way to achieve stasis.

As for defining sociopathy:
so·ci·o·path noun
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

There is this:

"Doctors don't officially diagnose people as psychopaths or sociopaths. They use a different term instead: antisocial personality disorder. Most experts believe psychopaths and sociopaths share a similar set of traits. People like this have a poor inner sense of right and wrong." --
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/fea ... difference

Have you a better definition?

bluethread: "So, are you pro(po)sing a clockwork orange?"

I seem to remember that process was not effective. (It was presented in a work of fiction and was certainly not a method that made use of what is known of psychology.)
At present humane sequestration of those not able to control themselves would seem to be indicated. We may discover methods to re-integrate them into society, if we reason and investigate rather than just respond with unthinking violence.

bluethread: " How is it we are going to implement this, since violence is not an option.'

Violence is an option, but should be a reasonable measured response. This, again, requires thoughtful consideration, not some automatic response from the amygdala.

Again: What works well enough for a small group of hunter gatherers is not sufficient for a civilization. The stresses are different and in more abundance. Evolution has not caught up with civilization.

[ThePainefulTruth]

This week 3 people were gunned down who were all Islamic in Chapel Hill, NC. An Islamic center was burnt down in Houston.

Considering these are isolated events. The question still remains is this terrorism or a hate crime? Was the intention to cause fear or was the intent to kill or vandalize out of hatred? or Both?

Hate crimes and the associated thought police are both pure political corruption run rampant.