Shriver speaks about anger, exclusion and violence

[eighthobstruction]

Ok then we'll just have laws....

....by the way I think the usual cliche/insult is "what universe are you from??"....

[Tarantella]

The trouble is, Shriver is not critiqueing the kind of society that uses body image to sell product; nor is she accusing the Murdoch and other press for setting examples for others to follow as role models.

Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with what she was discussing in her recent comments. The Murdoch press was feeding a particular appetite - and I'll bet that's an unpalatable idea. I don't sanction the means by which they did it - some should be doing time - but the tripe they feed to consumers. Why would you print a newspaper like that if people didn't ingest that rubbish? It's pretty confronting isn't it?

[Tarantella]

Ok then we'll just have laws...

We are in 100% agreement, except that I want to see them enforced meaningfully. Not a slap on the wrist with a wet feather because you're under 18 and have offended 20 times already (which is the case in Australia).

[eighthobstruction]

Are you now talking about physical offenses or cyber offenses....??

[Tarantella]

The "exclusion" that Shriver talks about is certainly real but I don't think she sees the bigger picture at all. She "explains" the Boston Marathon bombers' motivation merely in terms of a "sense of having been left out, and a subsequent vengefulness ... [an] urge to annihilate whatever seems to elude or exclude you". This is really no better than GW Bush's "they hate our freedoms" to "explain" why there are attacks on the USA by people of Muslim belief.

Without making any excuses for terrorist acts it's surely important to understand that the people who carry them out believe themselves to be committing acts of war against an imperial power which has supported their coreligionists displacement and effective mass incarceration (in Palestine), supported dictatorial régimes when it suited them (in Egypt, Libya, Indonesia, Bahrain and many other places), starved their countries (Iraq) and then invaded them (Iraq again, Afghanistan), killed hundreds of civilians with drone attacks (Afghanistan and Pakistan), and so on. And Western governments respond to this situation by continuing to pursue those same destructive policies which have ensured that the USA is regarded in most of the world as currently one of the most serious threats to world peace (generally coming second to Israel, which of course is armed and funded with extensive US help so that comes to the same thing). None of this is mentioned in her article, which renders it useless as analysis of why such terrorist acts are carried out.

She does however make a direct comparison between the "exclusion" felt by such people as the Boston bombers and the exclusion that generates angry outpourings across the internet, and here she has a point: the economic crisis of 2008 and the subsequent way in which the people who caused it are still getting their fat bonuses while the poorest in society are made its victims is, among many other things, evidence of the way most members of even our supposedly enlightened societies are excluded from participation in them. "Freedom" in our society carries a property qualification, which seems also to confer freedom from responsibility to those less fortunate than oneself. But she doesn't mention any of this, and so her article becomes doubly useless.

I've heard Shriver speak on lots of TV debates and she makes a whole lot of sense to me. Exclusion is exclusion. Simple. And Chechnya, forgive me - didn't it belong once to the Soviet Empire? Remember them? How many Russians did Stalin kill - I've forgotten? Oh that's right - the good old USA is to blame after all.

Your arguments are good insofar as arguments go. Realpolitik is another matter altogether. And freedom from responsibility is a particularly western phenomenon fuelled by clever and avaricious lawyers. Boy, I'll bet they're rubbing their collective hands over same sex marriage!! Boodle in the bank:

"Listen up boys/girls...there's a whole new demographic of litigants in the pipeline - they're giving marriage equality to gays. Yeah, with 50% of hetero marriages failing I reckon' we're onto something here!!". (Collective cheer).

[amateur51]

I've heard Shriver speak on lots of TV debates and she makes a whole lot of sense to me. Exclusion is exclusion. Simple. And Chechnya, forgive me - didn't it belong once to the Soviet Empire? Remember them? How many Russians did Stalin kill - I've forgotten? Oh that's right - the good old USA is to blame after all.

Your arguments are good insofar as arguments go. Realpolitik is another matter altogether. And freedom from responsibility is a particularly western phenomenon fuelled by clever and avaricious lawyers. Boy, I'll bet they're rubbing their collective hands over same sex marriage!! Boodle in the bank:

"Listen up boys/girls...there's a whole new demographic of litigants in the pipeline - they're giving marriage equality to gays. Yeah, with 50% of hetero marriages failing I reckon' we're onto something here!!". (Collective cheer).

Do you see equal marriage as a problem then?

[Tarantella]

Do you see equal marriage as a problem then?

As somebody with lawyers in the family, ABSOLUTELY NOT. I don't care if they marry or not - I simply say it's a potential windfall for the legal profession.

[Tarantella]

Are you now talking about physical offenses or cyber offenses....??

What difference would it make? Do the crime, do the time.

Accused: 'Oh, but, your Honour...Mum wasn't home on the day I had my 18th birthday and Dad was out getting drunk..it's not my fault, really, see..!!"

Judge: "There, there young man/woman... now you be a good little boy/girl and don't do it again".

My school students laughed heartily at this form of "justice" after their regular court appearances.

[amateur51]

As somebody with lawyers in the family, ABSOLUTELY NOT. I don't care if they marry or not - I simply say it's a potential windfall for the legal profession.

You seemed to using equal maariage as an example of freedom from responsibility. Do you see it as socially progressive and perhaps necessary?

[Flosshilde]

Would it worry you, particularly, to think that there are whole social groupings who believe that society has too much freedom and that watering down laws only contributes to more violence. That permissiveness is anathema to social cohesion; that anarchy comes not necessarily from an opposing philosophy like Communism or totalitarianism in general,

Well, it does, somewhat, because the 'social grouping' that tends to make such sweeping generalisations are, on the whole, rather right-wing (a generalisation in itself, I know), who want laws that 'crack down' on anyone they happen to dislike (which often includes me). They are usually totalitarian in nature.

I've been in the teaching profession which discussed rights and responsibilities too. Funny. Very funny. The students knew exactly what their rights were and effective discipline wasn't regarded as something many should take seriously. Give them rights and then talk about responsibility afterwards. Yep, good idea.

Which is not what I said.

I find it difficult to take Shriver's piece seriously; she lumps together a number of things that aren't similar (abuse on the internet, bomb attacks) & ascribes them to the same cause, and suggests that she knows the reasons for the bombs in Boston - when nobody has been able to question the suspects. She says "we’ve met enough of these miscreants by now to be pretty sure, on the deepest level, what powers these people. Whether the killers are foreign or domestic, the constellation of underlying emotions is always the same. Resentment, grievance, envy, mean-spiritedness, and contempt. - I think that's rather simplistic & ignore the political aspect others have talked about above. I think that as Americans she and - I assume - you have difficulty in seeing that.

(& anybody who can say of kittens that they are "intrinsically benevolent" can't really be taken seriously as a writer nor as an intelligent person, whatever they might look like)

[Tarantella]

You seemed to using equal maariage as an example of freedom from responsibility. Do you see it as socially progressive and perhaps necessary?

You're somewhat confused. I meant nothing of the sort. If people want to be married and are of the same sex good luck to them. I just see the financial benefits as a quietly determined little incentive for many (ex lawyer) parliamentarians. But forgive me for my cynicism.

[Tarantella]

Well, it does, somewhat, because the 'social grouping' that tends to make such sweeping generalisations are, on the whole, rather right-wing (a generalisation in itself, I know), who want laws that 'crack down' on anyone they happen to dislike (which often includes me). They are usually totalitarian in nature.



Which is not what I said.

I find it difficult to take Shriver's piece seriously; she lumps together a number of things that aren't similar (abuse on the internet, bomb attacks) & ascribes them to the same cause, and suggests that she knows the reasons for the bombs in Boston - when nobody has been able to question the suspects. She says "we’ve met enough of these miscreants by now to be pretty sure, on the deepest level, what powers these people. Whether the killers are foreign or domestic, the constellation of underlying emotions is always the same. Resentment, grievance, envy, mean-spiritedness, and contempt. - I think that's rather simplistic & ignore the political aspect others have talked about above. I think that as Americans she and - I assume - you have difficulty in seeing that.

(& anybody who can say of kittens that they are "intrinsically benevolent" can't really be taken seriously as a writer nor as an intelligent person, whatever they might look like)

Yes, right wing is a generalization. The fragmenting into these two polarities is unhelpful. All people want to feel safe and if the judiciary in its infinite wisdom is going to ignore whole swathes of the population who are increasingly concerned about escalating social violence and unpleasantness and experience consequent disaffection then they might begin to feel, well, rage...mightn't they?

[eighthobstruction]

Getting a bit scatter gun with what you are talking about now....lawyers, gay marriage, anti- social behaviour, Stalin, Australian schools, Australian Judges/courts....what exactly is it you want to discuss....??....

[Tarantella]

Getting a bit scatter gun with what you are talking about now....lawyers, gay marriage, anti- social behaviour, Stalin, Australian schools, Australian Judges/courts....what exactly is it you want to discuss....??....

I'm responding to the tangential comments in many of the previous postings. It's late here. Goodnight.

[amateur51]

Your arguments are good insofar as arguments go. Realpolitik is another matter altogether. And freedom from responsibility is a particularly western phenomenon fuelled by clever and avaricious lawyers. Boy, I'll bet they're rubbing their collective hands over same sex marriage!! Boodle in the bank:

In response, I wrote:

"You seemed to using equal maariage as an example of freedom from responsibility. Do you see it as socially progressive and perhaps necessary?"

You're somewhat confused. I meant nothing of the sort. If people want to be married and are of the same sex good luck to them. I just see the financial benefits as a quietly determined little incentive for many (ex lawyer) parliamentarians. But forgive me for my cynicism.

I don't see any confusion (on my part) there.