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?

[bluethread]

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.

I wasn't quoting him as an authority, but as having illustrated the point very well. That is what make comedy humorous. Hesitation can also result in a bullet, a beating, a prison sentence or even a hangman's noose. That is why we have these impulses. Yes, clear thinking is important in a violent situation, that is why one needs to prepare and practice ahead of time, so that the conditioned response is more reasoned.

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.

At your leisure, in a controlled environment, have you never heard of hyperbole? You are right about considering your steps. As I said above, that is why one needs to prepare and practice ahead of time, and that includes violent responses.

By the way, please keep the bifurcation of my comments to a minimum. Context is important.

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.

So, why did you state it in economic terms, i.e. "your share of resources" and "That is why so many Americans are obese. And that is why the wealthy are never wealthy enough."? What does that have to do with violence?

Regarding practice, that is my point. One can not count on others not acting violently. So, one must be prepared.

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?

I am not the one making the accusations. It seems that your talking in extremes does not make things clearer in this case. I thought this was not about economics, but you ended your next paragraph with, "So, maybe if we eliminated all the sociopathic capitalists ...?" and ask, "Can we sign you up to make the sacrifice for a better, (less miserable,) world?" If your are not saying that I am sociopathic capitalist, what kind of sacrifice are you calling for on my part? Also, how does efficient and effective capitalism equate to "a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience."?

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.

I did not say, "unthinking violence", I merely referred to the fact that violent impuses are a natural human behavior. War generally is the culmination of a series of measured responses that have not worked. So, you prefer the gulag? You still haven't explained how that works. You merely appealed to the fallacies of scale and novelty. They are "a small group of hunter gatherers" and we are "a civilization". Now, if you can explain how large populations and social innovation can make violence obsolete, then your argument can be moved from fallacy to conjecture and we can proceed to analyze that conjecture.

Again, just a reminder, please keep the bifurcation to minimum. I nearly repeated the second how question, because it had been seperated from the "clockwork orange" what question. Also, bifurcation can lead to some rather long and confusing posts.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to bluethread]

bluethread : "So, why did you state it in economic terms, i.e. "your share of resources" and "That is why so many Americans are obese. And that is why the wealthy are never wealthy enough."? What does that have to do with violence?"

It has to do with impulse control, with interposing the frontal cortex between perception and response.

bluethread : "One can not count on others not acting violently. So, one must be prepared."

There is never absolute certainty, or perfect security. What we do know, and have known for a long time, is that people walking around armed and fearful doesn't cut down on violent behavior, it results in more. The fear of violence results in more violence. Fearful or angry people, even trained police, tend to shoot first and ask questions later. (See headlines.)
In the "old west" one of the first ordinances passed in nearly every town, was to prohibit the carrying of firearms within the city limits. Those folks lived in the real world, where it was known and understood that the very fact that folks carried firearms exacerbated the frequency and seriousness of violence. That is the real world.

bluethread : "It seems that your talking in extremes does not make things clearer in this case."

bluethread: "At your leisure, in a controlled environment, have you never heard of hyperbole?'

So, I talk in extremes, while you use hyperbole?
It seems that, like most people, you have one set of rules for others and a somewhat relaxed set for yourself. It is what almost all humans do. It is why we have police stopping people for speeding. I am sorry if you can't make the connection between principle and example. Perhaps if you think really, really hard, ...? Hint: Others are scofflaws but you have a good reason.

bluethread : "I thought this was not about economics, but you ended your next paragraph with, 'So, maybe if we eliminated all the sociopathic capitalists ...?' and ask, 'Can we sign you up to make the sacrifice for a better, (less miserable,) world?' "

I was writing of impulse control. Violence is usually the result of inefficient impulse control, as is the acquisition of wealth beyond reasonable need at the expense of others, which sows social unrest, and the tendency to over-eat which damages health, or cheat on your spouse which leads to the spread of disease and familial disorders, or take that thing that no one is watching.

bluethread : "Again, just a reminder, please keep the bifurcation to minimum."

When responding, I try to deal with each point as it is raised. It would seem that, even so, you will ignore some and misread others. I'm guessing that your confusion would be even greater if you had to keep in mind more than one point at a time.

bluethread : "I nearly repeated the second how question, because it had been seperated from the 'clockwork orange" what question.' "

Was there a question about Clockwork Orange? I merely pointed out that it was scientifically inaccurate fiction.

bluethread : "Also, bifurcation can lead to some rather long and confusing posts."

Perhaps there would be less confusion in your mind if you would not leap to conclusions based on your biases. By dealing with your posts point by point I was trying to avoid confusion, and minimize your tendency to overlook the points I make that are inconvenient to your position. I begin to perceive that to be a futile endeavor.