I have some vague ideas on vulnerabilities (in the status quo), how the underlying vulnerability can feed a variety of different exploits (i.e. everyone and their mother has their own solution to the perceived problem), the complexities of fixing something when people are... well...
People. Like the SNL sketch where they demanded someone "fix it", repeatedly, without really saying what needs to be fixed or how it should be fixed or what a fix really involves. And there are people genuinely trying to fix it, as well as con artists and exploiters who will use your need for a fix to try and sell snake oil... and even the genuine attempts to help may be hampered by misunderstanding the problem in the first place.
But, well... most of it's too vague to really write a post about, and I'm a bit distracted right now. Though the distraction is somewhat related... I may write more about that, I suppose.
See, here's what happened. I start my new job next week, and since Barnes & Noble had a promotion going on I splurged on a few books. (Never mind that I still have unfinished books on my 'to read' list.) One was the book Columbine, which I'd heard someone praise on Twitter.
It somewhat surprises me how little I knew about the actual events of one of our first major school shootings. I had definitely heard what I now know to be some of the myths of the shooting - bullied outcasts lashing out at their tormentors and the world in general in particular - and just never really dug into it further.
Given my various interests, and the continued trend towards more and more white boys/men trying to shoot up public spaces, I'm somewhat surprised at myself for not having done so before.
Anyways, the book periodically makes me pause and think for a variety of reasons - the interaction between survivors and the media and the development of those myths, previous reading on true crime and serial killers and how that plays into the analysis of Eric Harris, whether or not parents can/should be blamed for their children's choices, the role of friendships/conformity/peer pressure in getting people to go along with extreme behaviors they wouldn't otherwise have done... as Dylan Klebold may or may not exhibit (I haven't finished the book, and am by no means a psychologist or expert, though I am aware that sometimes two people feed off each other and push each other in darker directions), and more.
It also reminds me of other vague musings that haven't cohered into a solid post yet, about our society today, about white men - like my brothers, and classmates, and coworkers, and yet also Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. About my brother, who was into computers in high school. Even though he never went the direction of some of the worst in gamer culture, he's the one that first mentioned motherboards to me, and 4chan, and the concept of being butthurt. The one who first described social engineering to me, and said that most of the elite hackers were really good at that. Through him I was aware of a lot of the same thoughts/values/ideals that I recognize underpin some of the more toxic behavior on the internet today, though he and his friends never really seemed to get sucked into it that far.
It's weird, because I feel I can almost grasp some of the mentality... while completely rejecting other parts to it, and knowing that many white men also reject those parts...
I remember one of them talking about Sarah Palin, for example. Someone who, even if you don't really like her politics or personality, won a beauty pageant and is generally considered beautiful. But he made a comment about how the 'whole package' had to be appealing, and didn't consider her attractive at all. I know attractiveness shouldn't really have anything to do with how we evaluate political candidates (even though it quite clearly does), but I found his opinion more interesting because it goes against the very toxic idea that men are shallow and only care about looks... and where does that toxic message come from, anyway? Most of the people I know... most of the white men who make up my brothers, and father, and uncles, and classmates and coworkers... are not that shallow. And yet there really do seem to be men who care only about how many 'hot' women they can screw.
And it's strange to sort through all that. I have some vague ideas, pure speculation of course, on why certain things appeal, who they appeal to, and what they say about the underlying vulnerabilities in our society, but it's just percolating around in the ol' noggin and not really anything I'm ready to write about. Too fuzzy.
Let's just say I'm reading Columbine, and it's thought provoking for a variety of reasons.
People. Like the SNL sketch where they demanded someone "fix it", repeatedly, without really saying what needs to be fixed or how it should be fixed or what a fix really involves. And there are people genuinely trying to fix it, as well as con artists and exploiters who will use your need for a fix to try and sell snake oil... and even the genuine attempts to help may be hampered by misunderstanding the problem in the first place.
But, well... most of it's too vague to really write a post about, and I'm a bit distracted right now. Though the distraction is somewhat related... I may write more about that, I suppose.
See, here's what happened. I start my new job next week, and since Barnes & Noble had a promotion going on I splurged on a few books. (Never mind that I still have unfinished books on my 'to read' list.) One was the book Columbine, which I'd heard someone praise on Twitter.
It somewhat surprises me how little I knew about the actual events of one of our first major school shootings. I had definitely heard what I now know to be some of the myths of the shooting - bullied outcasts lashing out at their tormentors and the world in general in particular - and just never really dug into it further.
Given my various interests, and the continued trend towards more and more white boys/men trying to shoot up public spaces, I'm somewhat surprised at myself for not having done so before.
Anyways, the book periodically makes me pause and think for a variety of reasons - the interaction between survivors and the media and the development of those myths, previous reading on true crime and serial killers and how that plays into the analysis of Eric Harris, whether or not parents can/should be blamed for their children's choices, the role of friendships/conformity/peer pressure in getting people to go along with extreme behaviors they wouldn't otherwise have done... as Dylan Klebold may or may not exhibit (I haven't finished the book, and am by no means a psychologist or expert, though I am aware that sometimes two people feed off each other and push each other in darker directions), and more.
It also reminds me of other vague musings that haven't cohered into a solid post yet, about our society today, about white men - like my brothers, and classmates, and coworkers, and yet also Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. About my brother, who was into computers in high school. Even though he never went the direction of some of the worst in gamer culture, he's the one that first mentioned motherboards to me, and 4chan, and the concept of being butthurt. The one who first described social engineering to me, and said that most of the elite hackers were really good at that. Through him I was aware of a lot of the same thoughts/values/ideals that I recognize underpin some of the more toxic behavior on the internet today, though he and his friends never really seemed to get sucked into it that far.
It's weird, because I feel I can almost grasp some of the mentality... while completely rejecting other parts to it, and knowing that many white men also reject those parts...
I remember one of them talking about Sarah Palin, for example. Someone who, even if you don't really like her politics or personality, won a beauty pageant and is generally considered beautiful. But he made a comment about how the 'whole package' had to be appealing, and didn't consider her attractive at all. I know attractiveness shouldn't really have anything to do with how we evaluate political candidates (even though it quite clearly does), but I found his opinion more interesting because it goes against the very toxic idea that men are shallow and only care about looks... and where does that toxic message come from, anyway? Most of the people I know... most of the white men who make up my brothers, and father, and uncles, and classmates and coworkers... are not that shallow. And yet there really do seem to be men who care only about how many 'hot' women they can screw.
And it's strange to sort through all that. I have some vague ideas, pure speculation of course, on why certain things appeal, who they appeal to, and what they say about the underlying vulnerabilities in our society, but it's just percolating around in the ol' noggin and not really anything I'm ready to write about. Too fuzzy.
Let's just say I'm reading Columbine, and it's thought provoking for a variety of reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment