h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

other than what media say?

I´m thinking of the Orlando and Jo Cox assasinations.

It seems there´s a problem with which label to stick to the criminals.


In the case of Orlando, the man is Northamerican, worked for the GS4 ( where surely didn´t learn lyricism) and a self-loathing gay. He is also a machist who used to beat his exwife. However, he is labelled as muslim terrorist. But his own father says he wasn´t much a religious person.

Police says that there aren´t proven connections with Daesh, however media still keep on that label.

The level of homophobia in US is very high. Preachers, politicians, media, films, jokes.... aren´t any of them accountable for that hate crime?

Jo Cox.
Whether the murderer shouted Britain First or not, it is proven that his ideology was a far-right one. He even has lots of neonazi stuff.

The level of hate against all what Jo Cox was fighting for is also very high. Mainstream media, politicians, not only Britain First or Farage, Tories too ... aren´t accountable for spreading so much hatred?

He is a loner, a poor nut. And yes, he is. Even in that, there should be anyone accountable for. The cuts in Health, haven´t left so many out of proper care?

The level of homophobia in US is very high. Preachers, politicians, media, films, jokes.... aren´t any of them accountable for that hate crime?

Good question yes they are many times the root cause, but what excuses football violence, street crime, pedophilia and many more, you can not place all the blame on others. there may be some fear of, or inclination to homophobia within the individual to to react so violently. I believe you should judge the person as who they are not what they are. Ultimately the perpetrator is guilty there is a difference right and wrong, and no excuse for confusion between them.

It is a black and white issue the only variation is mass religious or social indoctrination, where others share the blame but are unfortunately avoid the punishment.

Ultimately people can be more than one thing, and terrible crimes can have more than one reason or motivating factor. Someone can be both politically motivated and mentally ill.

The mood music, the background culture, and the nature of the political debate do have effects. And it shouldn't be a surprise after all the rhetoric of impending apocalypse and national crisis that someone decides to take matters into their own hands.

In a UK context, Cameron should have a long, hard look at himself. I'd really like someone to ask him whether he now regrets calling Jeremy Corbyn - the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition - a threat to national security. The Tories campaign for the London mayoral election was also an absolute disgrace.

In a US context, there's the background of homophobia, and again, I wonder if certain people regret their language.

But I think I'd stop short of blaming individuals, other than the person responsible (or their illness, if they're found not responsible for their actions). But absolutely, there needs to be a consideration of the possible effects of what people say, how they say it, and what effect that might have.

Good article on this in the Spectator - generally regarded as a source of high quality, right of centre comment.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/a-day-of-infamy/

What if you were both Islamophobic and homophobic? Which side would you find yourself on in the Orlando shooting incident? Not that I like either option; it just makes things very complicated in a world that is complicated enough.

Mateen seems to have been pretty messed up. Trying to use logic to tease out the meaning in what he did might be futile. I have gay friends who say that public reaction has been sympathetic on the whole.

Hinduism and Buddhism seem to refrain from classing homosexuality as a religious sin.

It's the Abrahamic religions that are the most anti-gay on the whole, though there are denominations that allow gay marriage.

My take is that it's foolish to worry about what other people do consensually in their bedrooms when there are so many more serious problems in the world.

I'm probably preaching to the choir here, though.

I think its too tempting to label someone as mentally ill as an excuse for behaviour that is utterly reprehensible,
the man in question - was he ill, what was his illness, does that illness normally lead to shot and or stabbed? I think not, do we need to spend more in the uk on mental health care - absolutely but that is another argument entirely, were the man of non-uk origin were he a different ethnicity were he someone else we would label him a terrorist and that would be the end of it neither label is correct, neither excuses his crime, should make it less in any way but somehow mental health... mental illness is more palatable than thinking there are people in our society people who are otherwise 'normal' who can do such things.

yes the debates the politics the media is toxic, yes such arguments could lead to individuals acting in such a way indeed you could argue that the near toxicity the vitriol is aimed at getting such a reaction from those who are susceptible to it, is then the debate, the politics, the media, the language we use to blame? No because if we have to blame all language surely?...

" do we need to spend more in the uk on mental health care" [Dr. Anthea]

I'd be delighted if you spent enough on mental health care to figure these things out, so you could share your findings with clinics in the Orlando area.

Being messed up mentally [I've heard that very few mental health practitioners use the word "insane" these days] is not necessarily a carte blanche for horrendous acts. Insanity is now considered a legal concept, and revolves around whether the defendant can tell right from wrong, *and* be capable of standing trial.

If you live long enough, you may eventually come reluctantly to the conclusion that some people are just plain evil.