Live data from Hacker News

Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

nytimes.com

1–10 of 249 posts

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#2
I cringe every time I hear perpetrators of mass shootings described as "evil". Evil implies a presence of something bad. It's an easy label that allows people to hate the perpetrator.

It's much more accurate to describe the perpetrators as cold, empty, detached. That is frightening, because there is no hope of reasoning or bargaining with someone who is truly detached from emotion.

There is no such thing as evil. I appreciate this reporter for offering a more accurate picture of who these perpetrators really are.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#3
post #2

I cringe every time I hear perpetrators of mass shootings described as "evil". Evil implies a presence of something bad. It's an easy label that allows people to hate the perpetrator. It's much more accurate to describe the perpetrators as cold, empty, detached. That is frightening, because there is no hope of reasoning or bargaining with someone who is truly detached from emotion. There is no such thing as evil. I a…

> "There is no such thing as evil."

Surely that depends on your definition of the word, and by most if not all definitions it definitely is possible to be evil.

Maybe nobody can be pure evil, as in nothing but evil, but if you let that rule out calling them evil then you can equally say there's no such thing as nice, mean, clever, stupid, etc. etc.

  Evil (adj)

  1
  a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked 
  b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
  
  2
  a archaic : inferior 
  b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive c : disagreeable
  
  3
  a : causing harm : pernicious
  b : marked by misfortune : unlucky 

  (Merriam-Webster)

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#4
post #2

I cringe every time I hear perpetrators of mass shootings described as "evil". Evil implies a presence of something bad. It's an easy label that allows people to hate the perpetrator. It's much more accurate to describe the perpetrators as cold, empty, detached. That is frightening, because there is no hope of reasoning or bargaining with someone who is truly detached from emotion. There is no such thing as evil. I a…

> It's much more accurate to describe the perpetrators as cold, empty, detached.

The article states that, according to the Secret Service, 78% of these school shooters are NOT cold, empty, detached (which would describe socio/psychopaths). Instead, they are severely depressed individuals.

If you haven't ever been severely depressed (I have) it's probably quite difficult to understand, but these are people whose minds are completely, utterly, passionately and absolutely wound up inside, anxious and stressed about perceived incurable flaws in their character and the apparently unresolvable frustration, despair, resentment and anger those beliefs generate towards themselves - and in these very sad cases, towards others.

On the outside they can appear completely normal and even happy (I went to great lengths to hide my inner turmoil during my depression); don't mistake that for what is going on on the inside. "Depression", sadly, is a dirty word in society.

Unfortunately this feeds into and reinforces the exact set of dysfunctional beliefs that drive the severely depressed individual towards, and sometimes over, the edge. Imagine feeling like a broken human, only to have society reinforce that depression means you're broken; it creates a secondary, even more powerful disturbance in your mind. This causes the depressed to withdraw even further, which is even worse for a depressed individual (notice how all of these people withdraw from normal activities before the shootings), and pretty much guarantees a horrible end.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#5
post #2

I cringe every time I hear perpetrators of mass shootings described as "evil". Evil implies a presence of something bad. It's an easy label that allows people to hate the perpetrator. It's much more accurate to describe the perpetrators as cold, empty, detached. That is frightening, because there is no hope of reasoning or bargaining with someone who is truly detached from emotion. There is no such thing as evil. I a…

[deleted]

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#6
post #2

I cringe every time I hear perpetrators of mass shootings described as "evil". Evil implies a presence of something bad. It's an easy label that allows people to hate the perpetrator. It's much more accurate to describe the perpetrators as cold, empty, detached. That is frightening, because there is no hope of reasoning or bargaining with someone who is truly detached from emotion. There is no such thing as evil. I a…

> That is frightening, because there is no hope of reasoning or bargaining with someone who is truly detached from emotion.

This position is strange, you think the only position from which you can reason or bargain with another person is if they are emotionally attached?

I purposely try as hard as I can to live a life completely free of emotional entanglement, I think emotion is largely useless. By this measure I suppose I would be cold, empty, detached. I choose to be this way because appeals to emotion are usually weak and lacking in actual reason as support.

I can't understand why anyone would look at a wrathful, violence laden action like mass murder and think that the problem is that the offender is not emotional enough.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#7
post #6
post #2

I cringe every time I hear perpetrators of mass shootings described as "evil". Evil implies a presence of something bad. It's an easy label that allows people to hate the perpetrator. It's much more accurate to describe the perpetrators as cold, empty, detached. That is frightening, because there is no hope of reasoning or bargaining with someone who is truly detached from emotion. There is no such thing as evil. I a…

> That is frightening, because there is no hope of reasoning or bargaining with someone who is truly detached from emotion. This position is strange, you think the only position from which you can reason or bargain with another person is if they are emotionally attached? I purposely try as hard as I can to live a life completely free of emotional entanglement, I think emotion is largely useless. By this measure I sup…

You cannot appeal rationally to that which has no utility function.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#8
I think of the murderers as having some kind of hardware bug. We have evolved special safeguard that prevents us form killing the people we live with and people we meet daily. It's crazy that we do live in proximity of other people and meet them if you think how dangerous single person can be when this safeguard fails.

All the search for reasons why the person killed is little bit like creating fake narratives to kind of natural bizarre event. If person is able to intentionally kill then there's something wrong with that person and we have to deal with it. You may investigate how it came to be that this safeguard was damaged. Maybe the person underwent military training or just had a childhood equivalent to that. Most likely there is something wrong with the brain of that person that was there from the beginning or manifested during puberty or manifested as a result of shock of some sort. "What was the murderers reasons?" is the most irrelevant question of all.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#9
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is frightening, because there is no hope of reasoning or bargaining with someone who is truly detached from emotion. This position is strange, you think the only position from which you can reason or bargain with another person is if they are emotionally attached? I purposely try as hard as I can to live a life completely free of emotional entanglement, I think emotion is largely useless. By this measure I sup…

You cannot appeal rationally to that which has no utility function.

You think you can't have a utility function without emotional justification, I assume?

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#10
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot appeal rationally to that which has no utility function.

You think you can't have a utility function without emotional justification, I assume?

A big part of your utility function is what you care about. Caring is an emotion. There are no separate "rational" and "emotional" parts in brain; parts of your utility function manifest through what you feel.
Post reply on HN