I think this coverage is good. Why? Because it makes his shitty ‘philosophy’ ludicrous. The fate of Breivik is not to fulfill the martyrdom he desires, or to be some Hitler-style king under the mountain, one day to re-emerge to rule. It’s to remind us that hateful individuals like he, and the rest of the far right that he associated with, are pathetic manchildren whose only asset is the ability to pull a trigger. The next time those people try to put themselves forward as the hope of the White Race and the Vanguard of the Future, remind yourself that these people think a PS2 is torture.
1 Like
You are aware that banning the Swastika in Germany is done not with the intent of Damnatio Memoriae? It’s a common misconception though - displaying the swastika is allowed (and used) for education, artistic and religious (Hindu or Buddhism) purposes. The NSDAP is a criminal/unconstitutional organization in Germany and so the use of it’s symbols are banned - same goes for the PKK or other, more recent, criminal/terroristic organizations.
4 Likes
Israel’s unconditional support comes from the right to far right in the US, while the far right claims that the left (such as it is hates Israel). The far right uses the theory of “Cultural Marxism” to claim the opposite. It’s just the usual misdirection sleight of hand.
2 Likes
All I know is that they took the Swastikas off the Airfix Kits 
1 Like
I thnk it’s a public safety matter, at least in theory. If someone is deemed a threat to public safety, they are kept off the street.
Now if you want to talk about revenge in the criminal justice system, we are far more likely to be that than Norway is.
1 Like
But there are plenty of staunch pro-Zionists in what passes for the American left. People have literally been denied tenure for being critical of Israel (see the case of Norman Finkelstein). I do agree, I don’t see the connection between unwavering support for Israel and the cultural marxist fears.
I think I agree here… to an extent. I don’t think we’re in another feudalism, because at least in feudalism there was far greater and more direct interdependency between peasants and the lords. If peasants were revolting, the lords did not get his rent of grain. Since we are so far removed from an agricultural sector, and much of our agricultural ouput is from agribusiness anyway, the “peasant” today is in a far more insecure position than the peasant of the feudal age. Check out James Scott’s argument on this in his study of South East Asian peasantry, The Moral Economy of the Peasant, he talks about some of this.
While we seem better off in the modern era, we have access to plentiful food (if shitty food), shelter, clothing, plenty of cheap amusements, options and choices to send our time, I’d argue that we’re far less secure than a peasant serf on his farm in the 15th century, even with wars raging around him. Zizek is in part right when he agrees that humanity is in some ways better off now than we have been collectively for centuries, but we are haunted by a very serious precariousness that peasants never had to deal with. Things are worse now. and I think that the powers that be know it, and they are trying to create a cold war out of groups like Al-Qaeda… but yeah. We’re screwed worse than peasants before industrialization, I think, just in different ways. Neo-liberalism is going to kill any gains we made when there was serious pressure to moderate capitalism.
1 Like
My point is that the white supremacy thing is just an excuse to him, something he tells himself so that he can do horrible things. What he really craves is attention, he killed 77 people for attention, and giving him media coverage feeds into his weird narcissistic delusion. If he had come across islamist indoctrination before the white supremacy idiots he would have latched onto that. It could have been absolutely anything as long as it would give him a space in the spotlight. That’s why I don’t want to give him coverage. It’s rewarding him for his crimes!
I remain committed to my belief that a great many mass shootings could be prevented if we made it law to retroactively change the names of any convicted shooters to ‘Pathetic Incontinent Loser’.
Retrospective tv shows that do the ghoulish profit thing would refer to the actions and motivations of the pathetic incontinent loser prior to the event. Newscasts about it would talk about the trial of the accused pathetic incontinent loser. Those PILs who go down shooting or commit suicide would have it written on their gravestones: “Pathetic incontinent loser who hurt lots of people, please dump trash and dog feces in the receptacle”.
And articles like this would be titled ‘Pathetic incontinent loser whines for more video games.’
Sad fact is that I know this pathetic incontinent loser’s name, and I don’t know the names of a single one of his innocent victims. That is not right.
Take all of the ‘glory’ or infamy out of such acts and these losers will go back to writing crap poetry or whatever pathetic incontinent losers do before they get guns.
1 Like
Is there something that makes you argue this? Why does it just have to be a grab for attention (which I fully agree is a possibility)? These are real ideologies in our world that there are plenty of people believe in and try to adhere to. Not everyone of them kill 77 kids, obviously, but they aren’t just cries for attention. Is there something specifically about Breivik that makes you think it’s the former rather than the latter?
1 Like
I agree about rehabilitation, but I also think some crimes are too heinous for forgiveness, and in those cases the perpetrator should be used as an example to others, then thrown away - not given any chance for redemption, let alone a freaking PS2.
Are we running out of people, that we need to keep this guy around? 6 billion schmucks on this planet, children dying from starvation every day, and the worst of humanity gets all these resources and our best efforts to bring him back into the fold. The bitter irony of calling that civilized is lost on people of privilege that have never known or seen true suffering.
I take your point, and it is valid, but I maintain my stance. Revisionism is badness. Who decides to consign which piece of history to the trashcan? You? A board of censors?
Nah. This is the internet. You can’t bury things like that. We all need to install better bullshit filters and decide as individuals what we consume rather than censoring at the source.
Swedish court confirms: Peoples of Ancient Palestine, 12 tribes of Israel inscrutable without PS4.(cough) That’s just cruel, making him do hunger and your foot keep vigil; that is, if you skip ruining the works, many parts of him could be repurposed for medical use, though I don’t see how the console and ISP services fit in then. Surely EA (or maybe Toady The Great) would make use of footage from an open-world simulator with an electroconvulsive therapy mix-in (kind of requires restraint, there) appropriate to the situation. Not the best verification tech (fuzzing is always on) but one can hope for a result (though; tasting petrol every time one sees a game controller isn’t so canny.)
I like the notion but I’m not partial to ‘Pathetic Incontinent Loser’… seems a bit soft, and is unkind to people with incontinence.
How about something more like ‘Deranged Fuckwit #001’ and so on? Actually, the number should probably be a randomised hex string or something, omitting any numbers of significance…
I agree about rehabilitation, but I also think some crimes are too heinous for forgiveness
Yes there are cases were rehabilitation is neigh impossible. German (and Norwegian) law acknowledges that and “Sicherheitsverwahrung” can be imposed by a court. Sicherungsverwahrung can only be imposed as part of a criminal sentence, and it is handed down to individuals who have committed a grave offence and are considered a danger to public safety. It is an indeterminate sentence that follows a regular jail sentence. To assure the suitability of the preventive detention, it has to be reviewed every two years to determine the ongoing threat posed by the individual. Preventive detention is typically served in regular prisons, though separated from regular prisoners and with certain privileges.
in those cases the perpetrator should be used as an example to others, then thrown away - not given any chance for redemption, let alone a freaking PS2.
Are we running out of people, that we need to keep this guy around? 6 billion schmucks on this planet, children dying from starvation every day, and the worst of humanity gets all these resources and our best efforts to bring him back into the fold
Human rights are for all humans. Making exceptions leads to “bad things” - last application of this kind of reasoning: Nazis.
Perhaps an analogy is easier to grasp:
USians like to berate Europeans about their superior application of freedom of speech. They argue that freedom of speech is so important that no exception can be made, even for hate speech (Westboro et. al.).
Most western european nations think that the most important human right is the right to life and physical integrity. This is so important (as recent history has shown: Holocaust) that no exception can be made, even for mass murderers.
2 Likes
This is why you live in a world in which it is considered okay that billboards and advertisements fill every available surface.
This is why when you go to the supermarket, the tabloids are placed right in front of you at the checkout, trying their damnest to draw your gaze to trick you into reading their headlines about imaginary celebrity sex scandals, conspiracy theories, and other drivel.
This is why when you go to the see a film which is listed as starting at 7:00, you sit around watching ads and previews for 30 to 50 minutes, and the movie only actually gets going closer to 8:00.
This is why we can’t have nice things. You’re unwilling to say, “No, this is unacceptable.” You give ground, and give ground, and then you give some more. You tell yourself you need to filter out the garbage and the filth and the absurd nonsense and the lies and the manipulations on your own - and anyone who has any expectation of not having to put up with all that trash in the first place is delusional and unreasonable.
Maybe I don’t have a -right- to not having my senses accosted by fear-mongering profiteers at every corner, but I’ll be damned if I sit by quietly and let them force more garbage down my throat without speaking out against it.
2 Likes
I can’t really parse that, but as far as I can see it’s missing my point. And anyway, according to Wiki, you’re smearing cultural Marxism.
Cultural Marxism refers to a school or offshoot of Marxism that conceives of culture as central to the legitimation of oppression, in addition to the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized.
An outgrowth of Western Marxism (especially from Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School) and finding popularity in the 1960s as cultural studies, cultural Marxism argues that what appear as traditional cultural phenomena intrinsic to Western society, for instance the drive for individual acquisition associated with capitalism, nationalism, the nuclear family, gender roles, race and other forms of cultural identity; are historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy.
Cultural Marxists use Marxist methods (historical research, the identification of economic interest, the study of the mutually conditioning relations between parts of a social order) to try to understand the complexity of power in contemporary society and to make it possible to criticise what, cultural Marxists propose, appears natural but is in fact ideological.
Seems pretty damn legit to me. Perhaps Zionists have a heavy hand in what’s generally deemed politically correct?
How about… all of us, collectively?
See, there’s really two sides to this argument. You’re either willing to allow this murderer to be forgotten, or you’re not. If not, I have a question for you - why not? Why would you WANT this tragedy to be given attention - to stay in the public mind, to be remembered?
Obliteration isn’t inherently bad. The problem is when people try to obliterate things that are contentious. In the case of a controversial ruler like certain ancient pharaohs, it’s easy to imagine one camp who hates the figure and wants their memory erased, and another that sympathizes with them for some reason, finds some value in the actions or policies they took or held which caused the controversy in the first place. It makes sense, then, that obliteration can fail when it is based on something which people may disagree over, and when one camp holds up the figure as a symbol of their opposition to the other camp.
But mass murder? Do you really want to suggest you disagree that a mass murderer is deserving of being forgotten?
The genre of true crime creeps me out, as do its fans.
Yes. It’s a bit worn out but: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
