(no subject)
The media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre is really starting to irritate me. They keep on trying to find a reason for why it happened. Trying to understand something is reasonable. But what they're doing is looking for someone to blame because "OMG HOW COULDN'T PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THE CRAZY SIGNS OF A MASS MURDERER?!"
Which is completely unreasonable, because his behaviour did not indicate that he was going to kill a bunch of people. Here it is:
1)He had no friends. (OMG A LONER!) He mostly either avoided speech altogether or responded with single words.
2)A teacher found some of his writing disturbing. Apparently there's a badly written play involving a kid getting revenge on his pedophilic father by stuffing his throat with cereal, killing him. So she reccommends him to counselling.
3)Another teacher threatened to resign if he wasn't removed from her class. Well I saw an intereview of her. She said it was because he refused to participate, remove his sunglasses and hat. She felt that was disruptive and undermined the class - she didn't feel she could teach him. So she wrote a letter in strong terms "because I always state myself in strong terms". He got taught by the Head of the Department instead. She even said that it wasn't really his writing, because university students write extreme things all the time. Good grief, they think it's avant garde. She even said that she didn't think it indicated violence. Male students try to be macho and ridiculous all the time.
4) He was accused of stalking women. The stalking was in the form of emails with one, and many phone calls with another. Now I'm not saying that is not disturbing, and frightening. Because it is. But frankly, I knew people in high school who had experienced levels of what could be called stalking. And even so, stalking two people doesn't mean that you're going to kill 32 random ones.
5) His roommate was worried he was suicidal. This or the previous one or both combined ended up seeing himself briefly committed as a danger to himself. They keep on saying "a danger to himself or others" on the tv because that's the legal term. But it was a danger to himself. And furthermore, he was released. It's not the univerity's or the health system's job to constantly follow former patients deemed fine for the outside world.
Was he disturbed? Obviously. But there are no real signs of him being really violent. Stop trying to explain things in neat little packages. Stop trying to point fingers in blame at people who didn't notice. Life is messy, and random. People aren't always predictable.
Which is completely unreasonable, because his behaviour did not indicate that he was going to kill a bunch of people. Here it is:
1)He had no friends. (OMG A LONER!) He mostly either avoided speech altogether or responded with single words.
2)A teacher found some of his writing disturbing. Apparently there's a badly written play involving a kid getting revenge on his pedophilic father by stuffing his throat with cereal, killing him. So she reccommends him to counselling.
3)Another teacher threatened to resign if he wasn't removed from her class. Well I saw an intereview of her. She said it was because he refused to participate, remove his sunglasses and hat. She felt that was disruptive and undermined the class - she didn't feel she could teach him. So she wrote a letter in strong terms "because I always state myself in strong terms". He got taught by the Head of the Department instead. She even said that it wasn't really his writing, because university students write extreme things all the time. Good grief, they think it's avant garde. She even said that she didn't think it indicated violence. Male students try to be macho and ridiculous all the time.
4) He was accused of stalking women. The stalking was in the form of emails with one, and many phone calls with another. Now I'm not saying that is not disturbing, and frightening. Because it is. But frankly, I knew people in high school who had experienced levels of what could be called stalking. And even so, stalking two people doesn't mean that you're going to kill 32 random ones.
5) His roommate was worried he was suicidal. This or the previous one or both combined ended up seeing himself briefly committed as a danger to himself. They keep on saying "a danger to himself or others" on the tv because that's the legal term. But it was a danger to himself. And furthermore, he was released. It's not the univerity's or the health system's job to constantly follow former patients deemed fine for the outside world.
Was he disturbed? Obviously. But there are no real signs of him being really violent. Stop trying to explain things in neat little packages. Stop trying to point fingers in blame at people who didn't notice. Life is messy, and random. People aren't always predictable.