Shooting in Munich

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Yeah. The spin has started. A German-Iranian is somehow associated with right wing terrorism. Sounds likely.

Why wouldn't it be likely? He has the wrong skin colour? 'Iranian' and not 'German' is the only relevant identity in 'German-Iranian'?

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Probably he was inspired to committ an act of mass murder by previous mass murderers. Of which Brevik is an obvious example. That is a far cry from being associated with any kind of ideology that leans to the right of the spectrum.

Being 'inspired' by Breivik is 'a far cry' from being associated with his ideology? Hmm.

I notice that when people bring up factors in other terror attacks such as domestic violence or mental health, there's a rush from the right to insist on the overriding importance of ideology. Now, it seems, we mustn't associate copycat attacks with the ideology that inspired the original attack.

It might be time to admit that what motivates any individual to kill is a complex mix.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, ElizabethB. said:

They haven't, have they? Celebrating is not the same as claiming responsibility 

Celebrating with a picture or video from the scene with something along the lines: the war has arrived at your homes (can't recall the exact wording) was pretty close to make a claim, though.

[ElizabethB.]

And not the same. 

[Luzifer's right hand]

Local right wing media and politicans are already convinced that the perpetrator did it because of Islam... Someone just needs to claim that someone said Allah akbar and suddenly there is no need for evidence anymore. Even if someone said Allah akbar... It could have been one of the victims(so far all known victims I read about had a migrant background ).

[Maltaran]

3 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

According to thr BBC the Germans think he was inspired by Anders Breivik rather than IS

It's also happened on the fifth anniversary of Breivik's attack, which aids the comparison.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The shooter is reported to have been fascinated by mass killers in general. Apparently he particularly admired a teenager who carried out a school shooting in Stuttgart a few years ago? I am not familiar with the particular case, but maybe some of the German members are.

Anyway, as I said, he seems to have been obsessed with mass killings. The ideology of the killers does not appear to have mattered as much (or at all) to him.

[Guardian of the Neck]

lovely,that's the kind of people we live with,terrorists,nazis,and now ordinary psychopaths...

[Jo498]

The main question seems to be why he did not carry this out at his school but at a McDonald's.

The worst school shootings in Germany in the last time were (Winnenden is close to Stuttgart)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_school_massacre

 

[Happy Ent]

14 hours ago, Wolfgang I said:

Local right wing media […]

I am not convinced the left–right divide is of much use in analysing these things.

From where I am standing, Islam is a very right-wing ideology. So the claim “It was because Islam” and “It was because right wing” are no contradictions – they mean the same thing to me (and I would prefer to use neither formulation.)

A more interesting fault line is the open society versus the closed society. 

“We” are on the side of the open society. Drinking, whoring, satire, Luther, deliberately shaming and insulting other people for their views, elected governments, strong institutions, equality before the law, nonviolent conflict resolution, individualism, liberalism, faith in reason, etc. 

“The other side” are the closed society. This includes islam, the right, and the regressive left. They are groupish, censorial, authoritarian, regressive, essentialist, totalitarian, tribal, and view violent conflict resolution with sympathy. Some of these groups even have extremely conservative values, currently most notably islam. They war among each other.

Almost all terrorism is perpetrated by closed-society people. This includes the European Left in the 70s, people like Breivik, and muslims. From where I’m standing, they are all the same, and the Left–Right divide imparts no illumination on the matter.

Europe has been characterised by a lot of open-society thinking for the last two generations. (Not all of it. I am happy to explain in which aspects the EU is an enemy of the open society, for instance.) 

We have also chosen to now include a large group of people who are enemies of the open society, namely migrants from the middle east and north africa, many of them muslims. The expected result is an increase in all the trappings of closed societies (segregation, violence, terror, surveillance, hatred, tribalism, lack of trust and openness, etc.) This is the expected outcome, just like things falling down when you let go. There is no mystery. This was our choice. Some choices are wrong, other are right. (Personally, I found this wrong. I may be wrong about that.) The negative outcomes (terror, antisemitism, massacre of gays, attacks of women who are scantily dressed, restrictions of freedom of speech) are predictable and expected. They may be worth absorbing because of the positive outcome. (Personally, I see no positive outcomes. I may be wrong about that.) 

But there is no reason for pessimism. The current situation shows that politics works. Societies, people, can choose to change society. We have a lot of power. Currently, society chose a step away from the open society. I deplore that, but it’s within our right to take this step; it’s a perennial aspect of human thought, the “Spell of Plato”. 

The Right, the regressive Left, and Islam are among the enemies of the open society. That’s where the fault line is.

[Which Tyler]

12 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The shooter is reported to have been fascinated by mass killers in general. Apparently he particularly admired a teenager who carried out a school shooting in Stuttgart a few years ago? I am not familiar with the particular case, but maybe some of the German members are.

Anyway, as I said, he seems to have been obsessed with mass killings. The ideology of the killers does not appear to have mattered as much (or at all) to him.

That's pretty much my understanding of the situation; he was just interested in people who've killed people, regardless of ideology. As far as I can tell his motivations look like enacting a personal fantasy, with a degree of revenge against people who bullied him in the past.

 

11 hours ago, Guardian of the Neck said:

lovely,that's the kind of people we live with,terrorists,nazis,and now ordinary psychopaths...

And NOW ordinary psychopaths? I'm pretty sure they've been around for a while - longer than nazis for sure, and probably longer than terrorists.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Happy Ent said:

We have also chosen to now include a large group of people who are enemies of the open society, namely migrants from the middle east and north africa, many of them muslims.

Except that large numbers of these immigrants come to the west precisely because they don't like living in what you term a 'closed' society and want to live in an 'open' one instead. And, of course, in any group of people some will favour 'closed' societies, as we see from pretty much any election in any Western country. So, your argument boils down to yet another attempt to stereotype Muslims.

[ElizabethB.]

2 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

 

 

But there is no reason for pessimism. The current situation shows that politics works. Societies, people, can choose to change society. We have a lot of power. Currently, society chose a step away from the open society. I deplore that, but it’s within our right to take this step; it’s a perennial aspect of human thought, the “Spell of Plato”. 

The Right, the regressive Left, and Islam are among the enemies of the open society. That’s where the fault line is.

It would be more interesting to read in what aspects you think the EU IS an open society? 

We did not choose this. Most Europeans did not choose any of this, they were never asked. Some nations have been quite vocal about it. Some chose to sign out of it all together. 

They did not choose Merkel or Hollande or Erdogan. 

It would also be interesting to read what you mean with, specifically with the right, repressive left and tribalism. 

[Happy Ent]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Except that large numbers of these immigrants come to the west precisely because they don't like living in what you term a 'closed' society and want to live in an 'open' one instead. 

This seems to be empirically false, as far as “false” is a term that can even be applied to groups of people at all. Every value survey among migrants from the middle east and north africa I’ve seen has been blood-chilling and soul-destroying. (I am happy to share you optimism in this matter, so please point me to data that contradicts my position.) 

Also, note that “I don’t like to live in this particular closed society” absolutely does not entail “I like to live in an open society.” Running away (or being driven away) from some aspect of a particular closed society is entirely compatible with closed-society thinking. (We have very good data that support this armchair analysis.) Closed societies suck, but so to open ones. It’s a real choice. Completely decent people may prefer closed societies (in fact, I assume the closed society is the default organisation chosen by everybody, including perfectly nice, decent, intelligent people.)

So you claim is not only empirically and demonstrably wrong (unless you think “large numbers” can mean “a significant minority”) , it is also a non sequitur. Recent migrants do like the values of a closed society (we know this) and there is no reason to assume that running away from a closed society means you want an open one.

There is very little evidence that our new compatriots want to live in an open society. But even so: averages are not very important to this. Even if 80% of migrants were in favour of the open society (which is an insane, counterfactual, and ridiculous number), it would be enough that the remaining 20% hated the open society with a passion that we are no longer used to handle in order to be a very big problem. (One of the reasons for pessimism is that whatever the numbers are, social science seems to predict they will grow worse, because of commonly accepted socio-economic models for conflict and segregation that are consensus across the political spectrum.)

[Happy Ent]

7 minutes ago, ElizabethB. said:

It would be more interesting to read in what aspects you think the EU IS an open society? 

We did not choose this. Most Europeans did not choose any of this, they were never asked. Some nations have been quite vocal about it. Some chose to sign out of it all together. 

They did not choose Merkel or Hollande or Erdogan. 

It would also be interesting to read what you mean with, specifically with the right, repressive left and tribalism. 

I’m happy to discuss EU as “the closed society” (and less happy but willing to discuss what-words-mean), but not in this thread.

[ElizabethB.]

9 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

I’m happy to discuss EU as “the closed society” (and less happy but willing to discuss what-words-mean), but not in this thread.

If the issue of "tribalism in EU" would boil down to whatwordsmean then I'll sit it out. 

[Happy Ent]

3 hours ago, ElizabethB. said:

If the issue of "tribalism in EU" would boil down to whatwordsmean then I'll sit it out. 

I don’t think the EU is particularly tribal. My problems with the EU have more to do with Platonic arrogance of the ruling elite,  the constitutional focus on the wrong question (namely, “who should rule”), latent totalitarianism (value education of the citizenship), and, most damningly, the absence of correction mechanisms (no accountable European government that can be de-elected for its inevitable failures).

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

This seems to be empirically false

 

Well, then, provide your data showing that it's false. You refer to it, but don't provide it. If I'm 'demonstrably' wrong, demonstrate it.

 

 

[Errant Bard]

7 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

A more interesting fault line is the open society versus the closed society. 

“We” are on the side of the open society. Drinking, whoring, satire, Luther, deliberately shaming and insulting other people for their views, elected governments, strong institutions, equality before the law, nonviolent conflict resolution, individualism, liberalism, faith in reason, etc. 

“The other side” are the closed society. This includes islam, the right, and the regressive left. They are groupish, censorial, authoritarian, regressive, essentialist, totalitarian, tribal, and view violent conflict resolution with sympathy. Some of these groups even have extremely conservative values, currently most notably islam. They war among each other.

While I do not totally disagree, I feel like you are creating a sharp divide out of a more complex, contextual and transitory state of the world, that can and will shift rapidly, depending on environment (what you call the power of the people); as an example, let us remember that fifty years ago, there was a law forbidding French comic artist to draw "immodest" women, and that entailed that, yes, even drawn, women's hair had to be hidden by a scarf (shocking I know, for those who see muslim societies and people as essentially "closed".) Less anecdotically, still with women, they did not have a right to contraception or vote... And this is despite the extremelly social and humanist views emanating from the resistance's council , those ideas were notably brought forward recently by people like Stéphane Hessel, whose books partly inspired movements like Spain's Podemos.

What I am saying is that anyone using a "us versus them", using arguments like supposed social essentialism, would belong in the "closed" group you defined. Things are more complex than that: while there is always the tentation to create that mythified "other" that has all the flaws, it is more like every single individual and group has attributes that have to be struggled with one by one. The stigmatisation of Islam as a marker of a "closed" group ignores some context, that way, for example the fact that 10% of the French population is muslim, has been for decades (two generations at least,) yet terror strikes have to be piloted from outside, and nobody is talking of the 99,99% of those french muslim that do not go making bombs explode... When a Breivik shoots people, it's not catholics (or whatever) that get essentialized, but his political orientations. So maybe "we" should consider the way we create those groups, and the way we essentialize their characteristics based on singular cases, maybe the grouping or the prejudice are not pertinent.

Why would a grouping based on abstract, complex, controversial ideology not include both bastards and saints, and even people who are both at the same time, depending on the subject?

 

5 hours ago, mormont said:

Except that large numbers of these immigrants come to the west precisely because they don't like living in what you term a 'closed' society and want to live in an 'open' one instead. And, of course, in any group of people some will favour 'closed' societies, as we see from pretty much any election in any Western country. So, your argument boils down to yet another attempt to stereotype Muslims.

Well, of course there will be stereotyping if one decides to imply that all practitioners of a religion (because, really, no book or ideology has ever attacked me directly without the help of some human carrying it. Islam does not drive trucks.) are basically the same.

This being said, all migrants I've heard don't really care about the "open"/"closed" divide: they move because:

1. They would die or live in misery if they stayed
2. Their target country offers them perspectives of a better life

Freedom as an incentive for exile is way overrated, basic needs is where it's at.

[mormont]

8 minutes ago, Errant Bard said:

Freedom as an incentive for exile is way overrated, basic needs is where it's at.

Right. And it's my belief that most immigrants understand that a free society such as the EU can better provide those basic needs: and that the tradeoff for that is understanding that there is a divide between private religious/moral views, and the law of the land as it stands.

[Errant Bard]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

Right. And it's my belief that most immigrants understand that a free society such as the EU can better provide those basic needs: and that the tradeoff for that is understanding that there is a divide between private religious/moral views, and the law of the land as it stands.

Hmm, most of the migration does not actually come to EU, though (one in ten, roughly), and I really doubt that one can shake off one's cultural burden as easily as you say, it cannot happen out of thin air, efficient welcome and integration policies (from what I've heard and seen they are impressive in Germany, speaking of that) have to be created by governments.

Of course if like France your nurtured a divide between your citizen with immigrant roots and the rest of society for like 40 years, speaking of "efficient integration policies" becomes tricky and vaguely humorous when nothing new is really brought to the table by anyone except closing the doors and shooting the intruders.