Yes our societies were starting to break apart, but we were all just expected to smile and carry on take on heavier workloads, less pay, increasing and changing populations and neglected yet more expensive social institutions. A recipe for disaster.
Although people like Brevik and the Christchurch terrorist didn’t have hard lives, they had no personal reason to feel dispossess but for some reason developed elaborate theories of cultural dispossession.
Whereas there are people who have indeed come from catastrophic society breakdown and suffered extraordinary trauma plus have had to find refuge in a very different society who don’t wind up killers.
Mulling over the free speech issue I’m not very clear about how our concepts of influence work.
The men responsible for these acts of terror weren’t just exposed on the internet to hateful like minds they were also exposed – like all of us – to a far greater amount of messages of liberal tolerance.
So why do a small number of men choose one set of angry messages from a small group of people and are immune to everything else?
On the whole I agree with Pinker that liberal values have won out to a large degree and people are much better off for that. But despite all the positive work by many there still appears to be a very strong hold out impervious to that message. And not just impervious but actively hostile.
There’s something perhaps that predisposes some men to this sort of messaging.
What sort of atonement do we want to see from our politicians?
The white clothing that Tarrant was wearing in court is called a stitched gown. It’s an item of clothing especially designed to be very difficult to rip and turn into a ligature. He’s being kept safe from himself as well as from others. Our system.
And yet, none of this is directly linked to the Christchurch atrocity. The killer’s hate culture, as expressed in his pretentious manifesto (always, these people purport to be cleverer than they are, with their pseudoscience and idiot history) is an online one: it crosses national borders; it’s everywhere and nowhere.
I’m skeptical about the link. The actions of Peters and others are reprehensible in themselves and may well promote an environment where the less lethal forms of racism can occur but events like this appear to the product of a deeply insular world impervious to the outside. It prides itself on its outsider heroic martyrdom act.
That’s possibly more scarey as there’s less options to deal it.
I wonder if the chilling irony of that world is partly a result of a Red Queen race to avoid the moderator algorithms.
One of the problems with even identifying a likely far-right terrorist is simply picking out his hate rhetoric from the background din of bigotry. They can, to some extent, hide in plain sight
Possibly what complicates things is the different forms of terrorist organisation. ISIS had an active program of on line recruitment with an organisation that was hierarchical. People with vulnerabilities were radicalised by others.
This form of white supremist terrorism is more self radicalisation within a peer to peer audience structure that feeds the narcissism. That may be harder to spot.
I’ll hammer on again about the apartment issue as it’s a tsunami of pain heading our way soon and people considering buying an apartment should be very cautious.
1. NZ does not have a great deal of experience with apartment management and that shows in the the complete unfitness of the Unit Titles Act to provide for equitable and sustainable management of apartment buildings.
2. Apartment buildings that were not originally defective are becoming defective because of 1. above. Management companies are scrimping on building maintenance and not informing owners of the consequences.
3. Defective apartment buildings are still being built and developers are knowingly selling to unsuspecting buyers. That’s all on top of the 90% of previously build defective buildings that various parties are keeping quite about. Only 10% of defective buildings have been officially identified – but councils, developers and insurance companies certainly know there’s that tsunami of 90% looming over the horizon.
4. Ruthless people are able to sell defective apartments to unsuspecting buyers because current laws do not ensure that a buyer can get full disclosure from a Body Corp or management company about the true state of a building.
5. If you’re in central Auckland and look in any direction along your line of sight there will be at least one defective building.
There’s a few scoops there waiting for some journalist to pluck.
By corruption I mean Corruption.
And that will be just the tip of the iceberg. More will follow.
What I expect a minister to do is to confront this rather than ignoring it.
What I expect a minister to do is reform the apartment governance laws that leave apartment owners at the mercy of corrupt management companies.
But I’m not surprised someone who tried to blame people with Chinese sounding names is incapable of dealing with the actual problems in the building sector.
And as I’ve said before - it’s not like there weren’t people trying to get the minister to pay attention.
As well as complexities regarding treatment environment there are dilemmas already faced in acute mental health that haven’t been addressed at all in the recent review which will inevitably occur in any psychedelic treatment regime.
One example is if someone with a major depressive disorder receives psychedelic treatment but then goes on to complete suicide - will the treatment providers be held responsible?
If someone receiving psychedelic treatment wants to leave the treatment but remains at risk what duties of care would the clinicians have regarding preventing harm?
These are difficult and contentious issues which are hard to find solutions for and at present the government is not attempting to promote any public discussion in this area.
Psychedelic therapy shows a lot of promise. Probably a large percentage could be done safely in community settings eg microdosing. But I wonder about rolling out facilities to cater for those who may need a residential setting eg people with major depression who may take some time to improve and whose risks may necessitate 24/7 supervision and when doses are large enough to generate risks by misadventure etc. And it’s well known that risk increases at the point when treatment for depression starts to take effect.
The government could set up a residential system in parallel to the curent acute mental health inpatient services but that would be expensive and to some extent duplicate resources and exacerbate an already dire shortage of mental health professionals.
Currently acute services wouldn’t be an ideal environment to have a psychedelic experience. The courts are sending very risky people to inpatient units when they should be going to the forensic services and because of under resourcing and increased illicit drug use staff and patient safety is placed at constant risk.
Ideally the govt would provide the resources to ensure that in patient settings would be appropriate for psychedelic treatment (many of those who would benefit are already being treated there) as well as just being safe for all which one would think would be a high priority anyway.