There has been quite a bit of
misinformation about the Parkland, Florida shooter who killed 17 at a local
high school without Donald Trump blaming the Russian investigation for it, and
his “support” for legislation—background and mental health checks—which would
likely have not been sufficient to prevent the shooter from obtaining an
assault weapon. How many times must it be proven that assault weapons are meant
to hunt people, not animals—unless,
of course, the shooter mistakes people for “animals”?
Among the questionable bits of information
about the shooter himself is the allegation that Nikolas Cruz was affiliated
with a Florida-based white supremacist outfit, apparently planted by some
“troll.” However, it was revealed that he once toted a book bag which had a Swastika
pasted to it, and he supposedly “hated” black people, so it isn’t such a
stretch of the imagination if it turns out he still is. A few of the original
stories pointedly named him Nikolas “de Jesus” Cruz as if to highlight that he
was “Hispanic,” which he is not; his actual name is Nikolas Jacob Cruz, and the
“Cruz” part is the name of his adoptive parents, the father who died when he was young. The media has noted that he and his brother were adopted as
infants, but without specifying that his birth parents were white and Slavic in
“ethnicity.” The media also refuses to investigate just what role the
dysfunctional interactions between Cruz and the way other students and staff
reacted to him (despite knowing he had ADHD and was on medication—or not) had
in leading up to the shooting. This is important because it is not enough to call him a "monster," when part of the story is why
Cruz apparently had gave no indication of "trouble" while living at the home of a friend after his adoptive mother passed away, had positive interactions with people at his place of
employment--but not at school.
Another bit of misinformation is
that while white males are the most likely candidates of mass shootings, there
are others, most significantly black males. In Mother Jones’ count of mass shooters from 1982 to 2017 that has a more narrow criteria to "qualify," 54 were white, 16 were black, 7
Hispanic and 7 Asian. It is interesting to note that homicides by blacks (half
of all homicides in a given year) is still something that is only address by
the right-wing media, largely ignored as a “problem” by the rest of the media
for the reason one can only assume to be that they wish to avoid stereotyping
and accusations of “racism.”
But one bit of misinformation
really disturbs me. Cruz was described as a “loner” in the media. The British
tabloid The Sun called him “a troubled
and violent loner.” The New York Times
admits that it is in many cases it is “hard” to separate mass shooters from “normal”
people, but the story provides a link to a 2015 piece that offers the usual
“profile” of a mass shooter:
They do not fit in. Their most comfortable companion is
themselves. According to Dr. Fox, mass killers tend to be “people in social
isolation with a lack of support systems to help them through hard times and
give them a reality check.”
“They have a history of frustration,” he went on. “They
externalize blame. Nothing is ever their fault. They blame other people even if
other people aren’t to blame. They see themselves as good guys mistreated by
others.”
At Santa Barbara City College, Mr. Rodger clashed with
his roommates and lived a life online. He stopped attending classes, and he
posted videos about being rejected by women.
A parent of an elementary school classmate said her
husband had refused to allow their son to spend the night with Mr. Rodger, who
would hide in their home when he would visit. Simon Astaire, who served as the
family spokesman, said at the time, “He was as withdrawn as any person I ever
met in my life.”
The majority of mass shooters, experts believe, target
specific people for specific reasons. Explicit writings or social media
postings sometimes reveal their motivation. A grudge against their boss and
co-workers.
With many of the killers, the signs are of anger and
disappointment and solitude.
Although the term
“loner” does not appear anywhere in the article, it is clear that is the kind
of person being described here. A Dr. Swanson of Duke University admits that “Sure,
you’ve got these risk factors, but they also describe thousands of people who
are never going to commit a mass shooting. You can’t go out and round up all
the alienated angry young men.” Actually, there are more likely millions of
people like that, both male and female. Or more to the point, such profiling
gives real “loners” a bad name. In fact, such profiling really doesn't even describe a “true”
loner. The persons described in the above statements are people who do not
necessarily wish to be “loners,” but due to severe personality or mental health
disorders are unable to “adapt” or “fit-in” the normal social sphere. They
nevertheless in fact wish to be “accepted” by “normal” society, and even desire
to have female companionship. But because they are “rejected” by society and in
interpersonal relationships, or view the world in absolutes like “me against everyone
else” this suggests that their actions are “revenge” against non-acceptance in
a world they wish to be in—not because they wish to be outside of it.
But a true “loner”
maybe someone who “chooses” to be one, but most are simply “wired” that way and
have become comfortable with that existence. Their attitude about people
generally may be influenced by experiences during early youth, but in adulthood
only arise when during a particular interaction that inspires consciousness of
it. A true loner is someone who has not necessarily withdrawn from all social
contact, but simply does not derive any particular pleasure from interactions
with other people, who either demand too much of them, or are too unwilling to
give themselves. They only interact when it is necessary to do so, such as at
place of employment. A true loner does not hold “grudges” against people who
have done them wrong, or maybe just for a day or two before it is time to move
on with one’s life.
A loner may be
“friends” with someone, but it has to be a two-way street; if they have to
maintain a “friendship” unilaterally, then the hell with the other person. They
don’t have the patience or the time to play the games women expect of them in a
relationship; life is too short, and there seems to be not enough of it to do
the things they wish to do anyways, and there is no point in wasting more of it
on the vagaries of human nature. They don’t like people invading their “space,”
and they try to avoid conflict by invading other people’s space (especially connards).
A true loner really doesn’t care what other people think of them, although they
will offer an opinion of them if warranted. They don’t trust the motives of
others, but will respond to others in kind. A true loner is person who prefers
the “company” of books, music and movies over that of narcissistic people
obsessed with self. As the Simon &
Garfunkel song “I am a Rock” tells us:
And my poetry to protect me
I am shielded in my armor
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb
I touch no one and no one touches me
I am a rock
I am an island
And a rock feels no pain
And an island never cries
No comments:
Post a Comment