[Warning: Mild Movie Spoilers]
This should be a strong sermon but it won’t – it’s going to meander a bit, because today I don’t feel strong.
The Red Knight by Elvin Ching [link]
In The Fisher King, Jeff Bridges plays a washed-up shock jock DJ who was at the top of his game when, one night, he told one of his callers to just get a shotgun and go clean up this restaurant full of liberals (I think that was it) – and the caller does. This was back in 1991, and the DJ’s show is immediately cancelled. Today, I suppose he’d be elected president. It’s just a little example of how things get normalized – which is a nice way of saying “society lies in the gutter long enough to become comfortable there.”
The rest of the movie is a magical surrealist meditation on redemption, the virtue of persistence, and the power of belief. It’s beautiful and weird and sad and director Terry Gilliam’s Monty Python-esque off-kilter take on things is powerful and not off-putting. At one point, the character played by Robin Williams, a madman, hallucinates that he is being attacked by a knight on horseback in red armor – and it’s one of the scariest scenes I’ve seen in any movie. Not because it’s scary, like The Scarehouse; it’s existentially scary because we see in a flash how a person with mental problems might literally find themselves in a reality that’s worse than hell.
“Thoughts and Prayers” is so much bullshit, especially because it’s so easy and inexpensive. When someone says they’re sending “Thoughts and Prayers” they are literally saying “I’m not going to do a fucking thing.” Maybe what we should do is imagine that we’re there, imagine that we’re being hunted by a hate-filled garbage-bag with a gun. There’s no point to any of this – none of it is going to move the needle of reality very far, he just wasted his own life and 11 others. And he profoundly altered and damaged all the lives that touched on those 11. What did he expect to accomplish? Hate is not a strategy, “Thoughts and curses” and wasted pain and blood. Right now I am trying to imagine the fear, the puzzlement, the sense of violation. How can this be happening? And why doesn’t the whole world stop and collectively catch its breath while sorting through the pieces in order to understand how to keep it from happening again?
In The Fisher King the story winds in on itself and has a conclusion that’s somewhat optimistic and is quite beautiful. But reality seldom works that way, seldom ties up the threads – it just leaves an ugly tangle. Collectively, we make what we individually see as choices, and lately it seems as though the civilizations of the world are choosing more repression, more hate, more ethnic cleansing, more authoritarianism, and less thoughtful beauty. Why choose an ugly tangle when we could have something else?
None of this serves anything.
“And why doesn’t the whole world stop and collectively catch its breath while sorting through the pieces in order to understand how to keep it from happening again?” – when an airplane crashes, there is an important and special government agency that’s job it is to figure out why and to figure out how to keep it from happening again. As a society, we care that much about safe air travel. Yet, I notice that there isn’t a concerted and thoughtful analysis of how to deal with mass murders. Imagine if “Thoughts and prayers” were all you had to take onto an airplane with you.
Those procedures were established when air travel was strictly the preserve of the elite – the “jet set” – and it’s still mostly the preserve of the better off… You can bet that if mass shooting victims were restricted to the 1%, something would be done pretty damn sharpish.
Well said and things are very, very scary now.
> You can bet that if mass shooting victims were restricted to the 1%, something would be done pretty damn sharpish.
It’s probably not a coincidence that most of the most recent school shootings took place at public schools and colleges. If there were a shooting at a prep school, there might be a call for action.
Is this a rhetorical question or are you actually asking this? In my opinion, the answers seem obvious. Then again, maybe it’s not so obvious for others.
Now this is where I disagree. I’m not a scientist researching the causes of mass shootings, yet even I could type at least several thousand words explaining all the various causes that lead to such tragedies. Scientists have researched this topic, and countless people have written about what causes mass shootings (or hatred towards other groups of people in general) and how to prevent these things from happening. It’s not like the humanity doesn’t know what to do about this problem. It’s just that it’s not so simple to fix it. Let’s just look at some of the factors that contribute to the likelihood of yet another mass shooting happening somewhere:
#1 Guns are easily available for anybody who wants one. Solution: limit the availability of guns. Problem: part of Americans oppose gun control.
#2 Politicians, celebrities, and mass media are spreading hate, furthering radicalization, and increasing tension between various groups of people. Solution: stop doing this. Problem: politicians often choose to intentionally increase tension between various groups of people hoping that doing so will help them get elected. For example, Trump demonized Mexican immigrants as part of his election campaign strategy, and it seemed to contribute to his popularity. So did Hitler, and he actually got elected (at first, it went downhill from there). Once politicians get elected, they can also use the “divide and conquer” strategy. It’s beneficial for a corrupt politician to have citizens belonging to groups that cannot get along because of different race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, political beliefs, etc. While citizens are bickering with each other, politicians can use the conflict in order to distract public attention from their own corrupt deals or the bad laws that are getting passed.
#3 Segregated communities, which prevent people from making friends with members of the other group. Solution: stop doing this. Problem: some people who are already more radicalized oppose desegregation; often different income level prevents members of various groups to live in the same neighborhood.
I could go on with this list, but I don’t think it’s necessary. I think that I have given sufficient amount of illustrations for my point.
Yeah. Occasionally I also get the same feeling.
In my country, the main divide is Latvians vs. Russians. In general, I feel like people don’t have problems getting along in their daily life. There are plenty of mixed families, most people have friends or work colleagues who belong to the other group. But there’s no way politicians would ever allow their citizens to live in peace. We have a “Latvian Nationalists’ Party” and “Russian Nationalists’ Party.” Of course, these political parties have different official names, but that’s how everybody sees them. Some years ago, in order to get more votes, “Latvian Nationalists’ Party” publicly proposed that schools where children are taught in Russian language ought to be banned. Of course, such a law was never passed, but the rhetoric angered Russian speaking citizens who felt threatened. At this point, “Russian Nationalists’ Party” responded by collecting signatures to organize a referendum about making Russian an official language. Of course, the referendum wasn’t successful, and Russian never became an official language, but this event really pissed off Latvians. Net result: no new laws were passed, nothing changed; however both nationalistic parties managed to gain a few additional votes by inflaming a dormant conflict between two ethnic groups.
Years ago, I used to observe all this crap with sadness. Politicians publicly talked about all the nonsense topics like Latvian vs. Russian interests. I felt like this public discussion was just a smokescreen to divert public attention, because simultaneously all the really important laws and decisions were made in secret and with no public discussion whatsoever. While everybody talked about nonsense topics, politicians were free to engage in corruption, steal state money, and pass laws financially benefitting the richest 1%. Back then I used to be naïve. I assumed that if only this stupid Latvians vs. Russians divide didn’t exist, politicians could no longer employ this “divide and conquer” strategy, instead they would be forced to publicly talk about the important issues (like tax breaks for the wealthy). Did I say I was naïve? In countries with no ethnic divide politicians can always create some other one (race, social class, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation).
Meh, it’s the USA. Can’t be too surprised. Next one will come along in due course.
—
Gave up on the Fisher King back in the day; too boring.
—
Nah. Can’t be.
Hell is defined as bad as it gets, the place for ultimate endless suffering.
Me, I’ll take mental suffering over physical suffering.
Dunc:
Either they are already included in the victim pool, in which case they are already motivated, or they are not, in which case the issue becomes including them.
Excluding the 99% seems otiose.
(Also, if mass shooting victims were restricted to the 1%, then 99% of the problem is already solved, no? Not that much left to be done, by then.)
—
mrbadaxe:
Calls for action there have been aplenty, for many years now. So, one more.
Big deal.
Ieva Skrebele@#4:
Is this a rhetorical question or are you actually asking this?
It was a rhetorical question.
It’s just that it’s not so simple to fix it.
That’s the point – it’s a complicated problem. Aircraft safety and public health are also complicated problems and they have submitted to reduction of risk based on metrics, testing, and analysis. I know that “it’s hard” is the standard excuse for why Americans do nothing about guns, but what the hell, we’ve done hard things before.
Politicians publicly talked about all the nonsense topics like Latvian vs. Russian interests. I felt like this public discussion was just a smokescreen to divert public attention, because simultaneously all the really important laws and decisions were made in secret and with no public discussion whatsoever.
That’s basically how I think it works, everywhere, even in the “free” societies.
John Morales@#5:
Hell is defined as bad as it gets, the place for ultimate endless suffering.
Me, I’ll take mental suffering over physical suffering.
I don’t see a need to distinguish between them. We could try some though experiments, such as what if someone were hyponotized(*) to believe they were having their fingers methodically broken. They would experience having their fingers broken, as well as they were capable of feeling it. Since physical suffering is eventually mental, I don’t see how we can hold them as separate.
(* I know hypnosis doesn’t really work like that)
Marcus, not to be depressing, but…
It’s only the abstract vs. concrete distinction, so whatever that fulfils, that distinction entails.
Ahem. Perhaps not separate, but complementary. One less abstract than the other.
Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo?
Torturers have known from time immemorial. True torture is physical torture.
(Sticks and stones will break your bones)
John Morales @#9
Having suffered both extreme physical pain and extreme mental anguish, for me it was the extreme mental anguish that lead me to want to commit suicide. The extreme physical could be treated with morphine, extreme mental anguish is far harder to treat.
With regard to Abu Gharib and Guantanamo, they did both, but it’s harder to reliably inflict extreme mental anguish, physical pain is just easier to inflict.
I don’t think that “it’s hard” is a fair assessment of the problem. Passing a law that bans gun ownership isn’t hard—write the new law, sign it, afterwards collect guns from the citizens. Sending a human to the moon was hard. Passing a new law isn’t hard. The problem is a different one—too many people don’t want to do anything about guns. “It is hard” and “people don’t want to do it” are separate problems.
For me there definitely is a distinction. Purely emotional pain is possible, for example, when a beloved family member dies. Purely physical pain is also possible, in my case, that’s how I perceive all physical pain that is temporary and doesn’t leave me with any permanent injuries.
Overlap between the two is also possible. For example, if I injured my dominant hand, I’d experience both (I’m an artist, thus becoming unable to draw anymore would cause me severe emotional pain).* Certain types of injuries and diseases (those that leave you permanently hurt, disfigured, disabled, reduce your remaining lifespan) are likely to simultaneously cause both physical and emotional pain.
—
* A few months ago I started feeling mild pain in my dominant hand while using a computer mouse. That freaked me out. At that point I found out that training myself to become at least partially ambidextrous wasn’t even as hard as I expected. By now, I no longer need to use my dominant hand for anything else besides drawing and calligraphy. This ought to reduce my risk of repetitive strain injury. See? People can totally freak out due to very mild pain.
@Ieva, #11: “afterwards collect guns from the citizens.” THAT’S the hard part. There are SO many guns. Probably hard for you to imagine, but there are… Gosh, I inherited a gun from my great aunt! There are A LOT of guns in America. A LOT. There are not the resources to pay for people to go around and collect them, there are so many. And then how can you be sure you got them all? How can you be sure that twitchy nut job you just visited doesn’t have about two dozen in a gun safe somewhere? Or even two hundred?
This is a really complex issue that can’t be solved easily but I think we should at the very least be working on it. I think though that the whole culture has to change, and that is really hard to implement.