Hacker News Reader

Was that guy in Norway part of a known terrorist group or something? Why isn't he a "madman" like the one in Aurora, US last week?

I do find terrifying what's happening in UK lately, seemingly all of the sudden from those of us not living there, like that new law proposal to monitor everyone's private communications. Not too long ago that kind of proposal would've been seen as insane. Now it seems a lot of politicians are taking it seriously, as if history before the past 20 years doesn't even exist, and we've all started from scratch 20 years ago. They now think monitoring everyone is a "necessary" thing to prevent the "evils" of the world.

Also, in US, isn't it strange how they don't talk about terrorists "hating us for our freedoms" anymore? Is it because they've realized what a stupid statement that was to begin with, or because they know they're taking them away one by now one, and it's best not to mention this dirty word "freedom" anymore?

The Colorado guy is a "madman" because he went on a killing spree for the sake of killing, whereas Breivik went on a killing spree for explicitly political ends, thus is a terrorist.

No. He's a madman because the media can't comprehend any other possible explanation. Breivik isn't a madman because it's Norway, and that's a long way away.

I'm sure the Aurora guy had his "reasons", just like Breivik. It all just relates to how we rationalise a position we don't understand.

I'd call neither of them a madman or terrorist.

To Add: I seem to recall there were media sources calling Breivik a madman (I helped keep the Wikipedia article under control at the time it happened and saw a lot of material go past). But they were less widespread because we could hang him off a political boom; right wing extremism.

But at the end of the day that was just Breivik rationalising what he did, to himself.

Same thing about computer games that came up at the trial; he played FPS's for a year to make him insensitive to killing. And he made a big deal about hating what he did.

Which one part of the media turns into "COMPUTER GAMES INSPIRE KILLER".

The reality of course is that it was pure narcissism; he played the games to desensitise him because, in the movie plot where he is the star, the games desensitise him.

Breivik builds a persona where he is the centre figure. Everything relates to him in some way - and killing those people "hurts" because that is part of the story. He still did it.

Good reading for this is alone's "The Last Psychiatrist" blog. This one is about honor killings but it touches on a lot of the same points: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/07/nobody_will_understan...

Ultimately the Aurora killer will probably boil down to narcissism too. But the media needs a neat word to rationalise his actions; in this case madman. Because he is white and well educated - so they cannot comprehend any other explanation.

If he were exactly the same person, but of muslim descent he would have been a terrorist.

I would call both "madmen" in that their reasons and methods are irrational to a "normal" citizen of sound mind. Breivik is also a terrorist as he was attempting to further a political goal (however irrational and incorrect said goal is).

But, as you say, the term "madman" is an easy and emotive term used by the media, and also incorrect. They are irrational about one or more things, which led them to take irrational actions (however rational and clear their thinking seems to themselves).

> If he were exactly the same person, but of muslim descent he would have been a terrorist.

Yes, the media (and probably the authorities) would certainly have done that, but they would have been wrong (c.f. the Ft Hood massacre)

But even so, he was working alone. Comparing Breivik with 9/11 and the Al Qaeda threat to the West is facile.

The norwegian shooter has not been linked to anybody else but it seems he prepared himself over many years and he has a fanatic insistance that he tries to push in his manifesto. Definitely a larger calibre of madman and terrorist.

It's because of that nebulous "they". The "they" who said terrorists hate us for our freedom was George W. Bush, the erstwhile President. He has been out of office for three years now.

If people accept it without complaining, it works exactly as intended.

Let's not assume the people implementing these measures are complete morons. There's power to be gained and money to be made from a submissive, unquestioning people.

You forgot to add, "Wake up sheeple!"

We've been yelling at the sheeple long enough to know it's ineffective. What I want to know is what would it take to wake them?

Proper civics and all-rounded technical and humanities education, preferably life long[1]. Without the humanities you will be left without an understanding of social repercussions, technical education helps you (in my experience) stay logical and methodological.

[1] Journalism, wikipedia articles, books, adult education classes, when good and proper are all education.

liberal arts were once considered the arts of the free - something that has usually been forgotten.

Suffering will eventually wake them up, but by then the opportunities to do something about it will be considerably less.

"...and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

One wonders the level of suffering people actually endure by having to purchase new deodorant at the duty free.

I'm speaking more of economic suffering than the excesses of the evolving security aparatus.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/census-shows-1-2-people-103940...

See that's where i worry about myself.

My immediate thought is, how do i get myself on that gravy train :-)

Buy stocks in weapons, private military, makers of silly hats and A&E hospitals.

Relevant: http://xkcd.com/1013/

> I've had friends consider me crazy for complaining - way after the time, I hasten to add - that I'd had a small deodorant can taken off me in airport security, which I'd then had to purchase in the duty free shop.

No one believes your deodorant would take down a plane. It's just that no one wants to pay to back that belief up.

Most people (maybe 85% or more that I've met) don't understand the basis of the social contract. You are given two choices, you vote for one, and that's the extent of your control over your situation.

London had to bring in the army largely because the private firm that had the contract to provide event security completely failed to hire enough security guards, and this became apparent far too late for London police to raise the necessary staff themselves. There were probably ways to avoid the army, but would have cost much more.

Would I be wrong in assuming that perhaps trained military personnel may be easier to deal with and more level headed than some plastic policeman with a weekend certificate in security and law enforcement?

Just putting it out there. It could be better than the alternative.

In Geneva(Switzerland) they tried to use military at protests some 20-30 years ago. Some people were killed, thing is military are trained to kill if they are being attacked.

As far as I know they haven't used military personnel after that...

Good point. Didn't think about that.

I just feel like my order of trust (for law enforcers) goes something like this:

1) Military personnel 2) Police 3) * 4) Private security

* In general I trust anything or anyone over private security.

They should have just given it to the army; well trained, competent and reliable.

Budget half as much to give the service personnel nice bonuses.

Sorted.

I still wonder why while there's technology so advanced that can see under your clothes, there isn't technology or common sense to figure out that a bottle of water is completely safe ...