• Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      As I’ve grown older and have had friends and family face various traumatic and life altering events I think I have come to realize that normal isn’t necessarily a thing and even if I concede that I understand what is meant by normal, all of us are a lot closer to not being normal than we would like to admit and crossing that line is often outside of an individuals control, no matter how much easier it is to dismiss and vilify.

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Agreed. For some there’s a drive to maintain perceived “normalcy” based on what is seen in the media. This has existed long before social media. The 2.5 kids, a golden retriever and a white pocket fence was the American “normal.”

        Trying to exist within social norms has existed for a long time. I think now we can see, through our digital lenses into the world, that social norms are different elsewhere, and the idea of “normal” continues to expand. And that’s a good thing, we are now willing to realize that everyone is human with their own whims, goals, interests, and wanting to exist how they feel comfortable.

        It seems the largest issues come from trying to take those traditional norms which no longer make sense, and force them onto people that have seen that it’s ok to be different.

        Today’s “normal” should just be treat your fellow human with dignity and respect, the golden rule is still golden. But I think the echo chambers of social media makes people join tribes of “their” normal and anyone who doesn’t fit that should be ostracized.

        Most of us are just trying to get by in a world with increased corporate or otherwise authoritative control. We should fight against that, but see another human as human, regardless of if they are just like us.

        What’s important is their behavior towards their fellow human. If they are hateful, violent, oppressive, predatory, etc, they don’t follow this new normal and they should be ostracized.

    • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      One can define mass shooters as mentally ill. It’s not exactly wrong, but not useful in the slightest, since you can only make that kind of diagnosis retrospectively. So what? The victims are already dead. To the point, mental illness is useless as a prospective indicator of potential mass shooters, since the vast majority of people with mental problems do not become one.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        To the point, mental illness is useless as a prospective indicator of potential mass shooters, since the vast majority of people with mental problems do not become one.

        That is the issue, it’s not about blaming anyone or anything, it’s about getting people help before they snap. It’s about having that option to get the help they need, because right now, for us in the USA, it’s really not an option at all. It can take months for people who need help to find it, and even then, if they’re insurance won’t cover it and they can’t afford it, their fucked.

    • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      No, they are killing people they believe are an enemy. They do not believe these people are innocent. They are doing this for a cause, one they believe in deeply. If you claim that killing, and dying, for something you believe in, means you are mentally ill, then all soldiers are as well. People want for these people to have some sort of pathology to explain their behavior, because they don’t want to believe that humans, without a mental pathology, can do heinous things. Especially when they do not agree with what the terrorist believes. However, they are people who believe in their cause, and believe that they are at an impasse with progressing their beliefs about society via diplomatic, and the system provided framework, to affect that change. So they turn to violence.

        • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It depends on the indiscriminate type mass shooter. Most of them have some political/ideological axiom they are deeply in. It differs from person to person though. However there are some themes that thread through most of these. Misogyny, hard right social, and political, standards, racism, and most have recently had a major loss that is traditionally seen as a measure of their masculinity.

          That makes up most of these people. When it is specifically kids shooting up their school, it is often that they view the people in the school as their enemy, for a variety reasons. These are generally mentally ill. However, the comment thread I replied to was discussing the broader range of indiscriminate type mass murderers.