Oh. Never mind.
Our Cub Reporter was on the job, reporting on the causes of the UCSB murders last week. Of course, a cautionary statement is appropriate, lest the reader run off with his or her own pet theory:
First off, I think we ought to have learned by now not to
interpret these horrible incidents as confirmation of whatever theory we
previously believed.
After negotiating that traffic cone ("That said . . ."), let's plow ahead and do exactly that anyway:
I think the fundamental issue here, the one connecting
Rodger’s particular psychopathologies, is a craving for status. All of us want to feel a sense of purpose in our lives, and want to be respected and loved by others. Rodger believed that without sex, his life had no meaning. What undid him was the belief that he was entitled to sex, the ultimate status marker (in his world) because he possessed all the status markers that in his reckoning entitled him to sexual attention.
And while it might be tough to work TLWORL into this piece, it’s pretty easy to use the Dante Hammer on
the Rodger Nail, along with a little extrapolated indictment of the culture*:
Envy, for Dante and his medieval world, is not really wanting
what others have; it’s wanting them not to have it if one cannot have it
oneself. Rodger was envious in both the medieval sense and in the more modern
sense. We have created a popular culture in which the worth of people and the
meaning of life is measured by hedonistic values, which are constantly
celebrated by the culture. What’s more, we have created a popular culture in
which young people are acculturated into believing that it is their right to have these things, and
if these things aren’t readily available, it is a cosmic injustice wrought by
someone else against their innocent person.
There we go: causes
of a maniac’s murder spree all figured out from way out here in South La. Work in a quote from Paradiso at the end to tie a ribbon around it, and it’s on
to the next topic for our Newspaperman.
Except for:
UPDATE: Sorry, but I've been gone all day long, and just getting back to this. I'm learning from you readers that this Rodger kid had been psychiatrically ill for a long time, and his parents tried to get him help. That's a huge factor, obviously, and one I wasn't aware of when I posted the article this morning.**
** Emphasis added by me.
Actually, I think DreRod's analysis is pretty good. Inadequate, but so are all analyses of something as huge and horrific as this.
ReplyDeleteNothing is monocausal. I think there were many variables involved here. But Rod has certainly identified a few of them.
I do think mental illness was the big driver. But narcissism, entitlement, envy -- all that stuff Rod mentioned also played a role.
Along with "manosphere"-fueled misogyny.
There is enough here to keep psychologists and talking heads busy until the next horrific mass murder rolls around!
Diane, I think that if by "good" you mean that all his major premises are true *in general* then OK. Unchecked envy can lead to violent acts, etc.
ReplyDeleteBut this is a specific case, and Pikkumatti details his knee-jerk self-righteous opinion/diagnosis accurately.
I've been envious and never killed anyone. I've been lustful and never raped anyone.
When I start reading excerpts of this guy's 107,000-word manifesto I think "nuts" and "envious" simultaneously. My (literate) kids often write little angry notes to get attention, but in my experience you shouldn't be able to write these long tedious screeds without people realizing that the primary and sufficient cause of the crime is extreme chemical imbalance. In a sense, the subject matter is beside the point. This thing was almost as long as the New Testament. It's a textbook warning.
Another thing that many don't realize is that violence due to mental illness often doesn't have the accompanying severe character flaws that this guy happened to have. I think that the only reason this is in the news is because people can somewhat write this into the tedious white privilege narrative.
I think that if you want to start looking at a secondary cause it's pretty obviously his parents’ divorce. Dreher never brings that up, but a commenter named Ryan Booth does. That's the obvious commonality between this and the Sandy Hook massacre. But bring on the gun-grabbers....
I do agree, Pauli. I just thought Rod wasn't as far off-base as usual here. LOL.
Deleteyou shouldn't be able to write these long tedious screeds without people realizing that the primary and sufficient cause of the crime is extreme chemical imbalance. In a sense, the subject matter is beside the point. This thing was almost as long as the New Testament. It's a textbook warning.
Oh, absolutely! No question. (Why do they always write manifestos, BTW?)
And re the divorce angle: Agree completely. No wonder the Bible says that God hates divorce.
Yeah, perhaps Dreher wasn't as far out to sea as usual, despite missing the elephant in the room for lack of minimal homework. But to the extent he's accurate, it's only by accident, and accomplished by stating the obvious and inserting his current topic/potential book deal.
DeleteOn the larger points, I agree with Pauli that our human nature makes us all vulnerable to envy and lust (and the rest of the Deadlys). And to agree with both of you, our sick culture increases those temptations to the vast sane majority, helping us all to stumble over the rocks it places in front of us.
OTOH, some of the insane are motivated to commit heinous acts by Beatles songs, Jodie Foster, or by seemingly nothing at all. Whether our sick culture increases the likelihood of madmen to commit those acts is a tougher question. Maybe Dreher will conjure up some Dante to help answer that question.
P.S. Another commonality between the Sandy Hook shooter and this guy (as well as others) is that they kill themselves when the jig is up.
I can't add anything more substantive to what's already been said, so let me at least point this out.
ReplyDeleteWhen, as Pik documents more elegantly, you turn yourself inside out through your own anus logically the way Dreher ends up doing, the only thing left after the "never mind" is the noise of having opened your mouth because you could.
In other words, you're pretty much left with being nothing more than a Kardashian with a beard, notable only for having distracted someone's attention for that moment.
In Internet punditry, *that* you respond -- to everything, immediately -- is far more important than *what* you respond. Everyone who has the same reflexive response you do will agree with you. Those who don't agree will respond to you as much as to the precipitating event. And what's sweeter than becoming part of the story?
ReplyDeleteSurely, though, that sort of thing has the risk that you will come to think your reflexive response -- about everything, offered immediately -- is important.
Keith: "…notable only for distracted someone's attention for that moment"
ReplyDeleteI guess that nothing which can be called "intelligent editorial oversight" is happening on over at TAC.
The place increasingly looks like it's run by a bunch of giddy juveniles. I think that any serious writer should consider looking for another venue. As the saying goes, if you lie down with the dogs, you might get up with fleas.
http://odysseusontherocks.blogspot.com/2014/05/tac-searching-for-point.html
Delete