I’m having trouble with the use of the word ‘terrorism’. I think it’s being bandied about too much these days. As is “crisis” and “tragedy”. And, “fill in the blank-phobia”. It’s important that the power of these words not be diluted by overuse in situations where they’re not warranted.
Perhaps I’m behind in terms of what information is being released about the young man who allegedly committed the act, but I’m not aware of his belonging to any political group—or any group—the aims of which he was hoping to further. Surely he would need to be in order to qualify as a terrorist? It seems to me his actions were essentially driven by his own unbridled hate, pure and simple. Probably amplified, as others have said here, by social media. Awful and very very sad.
The problem I see is that this young man is not alone responsible for his act of terror. For too long society has ignored (or at best wrung its hands at) the vile rhetoric which has created the conditions for this type of act to happen. Too much of our media is fuelled by hate, and then continues to profit on its results. We know from the Stanford Prison Experiment that anonymity allows people to dehumanize each other, yet the greatest/worst communication tool the world has seen is based on it. We must call this and persecute this crime as an act of terror, and then put in the work to remove the conditions that helped to cause it.
Agreed - but about the Stanford Prison thing: the whole thing has been exposed as a sham now: the participants included actors. I'm sure real experiments would show dehumanization's effect (observed life shows it easily). But we should stop dropping that Stanford idea - it was faked.
As I was well written and thoughtful but I do have an issue with this.
But that means holding expressions of other religions …... Banning or restricting any of these things should make me deeply uncomfortable. Religious freedom should be religion blind.
The fact is we don’t allow every religious belief. Most if not all religions at one point deemed women and non-white people and homosexuals, jews to be less human and accordingly treated as such .
I am free to believe in my God to believe your God is wrong but I’m not allowed to believe you’re less human because of that
Secondly as others have pointed out nothing is being said The Islamic phobic laws being passed in Quebec. Surely if Doug Ford were a Paso similar law Justin Trudeau would be all over it.
I hope one of those lines you’ve crossed which you are currently considering - the lobbying for Merck’s Gardasil vaccine to be forced on young girls and even young boys?? will help you sort through your demons. Perhaps you don’t consider lobbying for big Pharma pushing unnecessary drugs on children as “crossing the line”? I know this deviates from your point here but please tell me you are considering any role you may have played in lobbying the government for the use of a dangerous vaccine for children. In these difficult times. It doesn’t take away from the terrible crime perpetrated on this family but there are many crimes being committed on humanity at the moment. I hope you didn’t play a role in the big Pharma tyranny?
Darn. I was going to read what you suggested. Where did it go. I’m always curious to learn. I don’t wish to cause trouble but we need to keep the focus on the real issue of harm being done to humanity through a dangerous vaccination program. It’s important to note that the infant vaccination program in Canada now includes a 5-in-1 vaccine plus a flu and pneumonia vaccine - this is the recommendation for infants 2 months, 4 months, 6 months and again at a year. There is no longer any consideration for innate immunity. Lobbyists who don’t seem to care for human beings especially children keep pushing for more and vaccines. We should be considering the deaths perpetrated on our population through lab leaks, lies and coercion to enter a drug trial with dangerous consequences many of which we don’t even yet understand.
Ok. What do I need to reflect upon? I have an issue with the fact you were part of the lobby group to help a large pharmaceutical company push a dangerous vaccine on young girls. Perhaps you didn’t understand the ramifications of your actions at the time. Perhaps you stood to make money through this kind of lobbying? Perhaps you made a mistake. I’m glad that you are taking time to examine where you may have crossed the line. There is part of me that is uncomfortable speaking like this to you but I’m not sure how else one addresses this kind of thing? These are difficult times bringing up difficult questions and actions.
I feel like you are trying to get at a real question, but have front-loaded it with huge blanket-statements like "Lobbyists don't care about human beings". That, and the clear issue you have with vaccinations make you sound like a conversational third-rail.
I’m having trouble with the use of the word ‘terrorism’. I think it’s being bandied about too much these days. As is “crisis” and “tragedy”. And, “fill in the blank-phobia”. It’s important that the power of these words not be diluted by overuse in situations where they’re not warranted.
Perhaps I’m behind in terms of what information is being released about the young man who allegedly committed the act, but I’m not aware of his belonging to any political group—or any group—the aims of which he was hoping to further. Surely he would need to be in order to qualify as a terrorist? It seems to me his actions were essentially driven by his own unbridled hate, pure and simple. Probably amplified, as others have said here, by social media. Awful and very very sad.
It is amplified by mainstream media and governments at every level. Furthering the current human experience of terror, fear and paranoia
The problem I see is that this young man is not alone responsible for his act of terror. For too long society has ignored (or at best wrung its hands at) the vile rhetoric which has created the conditions for this type of act to happen. Too much of our media is fuelled by hate, and then continues to profit on its results. We know from the Stanford Prison Experiment that anonymity allows people to dehumanize each other, yet the greatest/worst communication tool the world has seen is based on it. We must call this and persecute this crime as an act of terror, and then put in the work to remove the conditions that helped to cause it.
Agreed - but about the Stanford Prison thing: the whole thing has been exposed as a sham now: the participants included actors. I'm sure real experiments would show dehumanization's effect (observed life shows it easily). But we should stop dropping that Stanford idea - it was faked.
Thanks for teaching me something new. Have a great day!
Read 'Humankind' by Rutger Bregman - very interesting book on human behaviour. Talks about the Stanford experiment and many others.
As I was well written and thoughtful but I do have an issue with this.
But that means holding expressions of other religions …... Banning or restricting any of these things should make me deeply uncomfortable. Religious freedom should be religion blind.
The fact is we don’t allow every religious belief. Most if not all religions at one point deemed women and non-white people and homosexuals, jews to be less human and accordingly treated as such .
I am free to believe in my God to believe your God is wrong but I’m not allowed to believe you’re less human because of that
Secondly as others have pointed out nothing is being said The Islamic phobic laws being passed in Quebec. Surely if Doug Ford were a Paso similar law Justin Trudeau would be all over it.
Nice reflection.
I hope one of those lines you’ve crossed which you are currently considering - the lobbying for Merck’s Gardasil vaccine to be forced on young girls and even young boys?? will help you sort through your demons. Perhaps you don’t consider lobbying for big Pharma pushing unnecessary drugs on children as “crossing the line”? I know this deviates from your point here but please tell me you are considering any role you may have played in lobbying the government for the use of a dangerous vaccine for children. In these difficult times. It doesn’t take away from the terrible crime perpetrated on this family but there are many crimes being committed on humanity at the moment. I hope you didn’t play a role in the big Pharma tyranny?
So it’s true
Darn. I was going to read what you suggested. Where did it go. I’m always curious to learn. I don’t wish to cause trouble but we need to keep the focus on the real issue of harm being done to humanity through a dangerous vaccination program. It’s important to note that the infant vaccination program in Canada now includes a 5-in-1 vaccine plus a flu and pneumonia vaccine - this is the recommendation for infants 2 months, 4 months, 6 months and again at a year. There is no longer any consideration for innate immunity. Lobbyists who don’t seem to care for human beings especially children keep pushing for more and vaccines. We should be considering the deaths perpetrated on our population through lab leaks, lies and coercion to enter a drug trial with dangerous consequences many of which we don’t even yet understand.
Ok. What do I need to reflect upon? I have an issue with the fact you were part of the lobby group to help a large pharmaceutical company push a dangerous vaccine on young girls. Perhaps you didn’t understand the ramifications of your actions at the time. Perhaps you stood to make money through this kind of lobbying? Perhaps you made a mistake. I’m glad that you are taking time to examine where you may have crossed the line. There is part of me that is uncomfortable speaking like this to you but I’m not sure how else one addresses this kind of thing? These are difficult times bringing up difficult questions and actions.
Thanks for letting me know what kind of person you are. Have a nice life.
I feel like you are trying to get at a real question, but have front-loaded it with huge blanket-statements like "Lobbyists don't care about human beings". That, and the clear issue you have with vaccinations make you sound like a conversational third-rail.