Now that the fog of war has settled (somewhat) on what happened, I think it’s the right time to discuss the massacre.
Most of the talk I’ve seen has been about the political side of it: Breivik’s ideology and What It Might MeanTM. Some people get very angry that anybody would dare to explain the events in terms of their political ideology. The idea of “using” a tragedy to advance your “political agenda” tends to get thrown around in cases like these and without having done a search I’m willing to bet there’s a lot of such sentiments out there.
I think the idea that this is somehow a bad thing is pretty ridiculous. What are political worldviews if not theories that provide explanations for events? And what else highlights the need for change (if this is what your worldview says) than a tragedy? The idea that people should somehow refrain from any political influence simply because the event is a tragedy is absurd. It smacks of a superstitious reverence for the “essences”/spirits of the victims and how they will be “tainted” by the impure acts of politics. Unless someone has another explanation?
No, this idea seems to be a club which people simply use to beat their ideological opponents with. It obviates the need for actual argument. If I’m a gun ownership lobbyist and someone takes a machine gun to a crowd, instead of talking about the facts on the ground I can just call any subsequent talk of gun control a vile attempt to capitalise on the tragedy. If I’m a civil libertarian and a massacre occurs, I can rebut the call for extra surveillance in the same way. The concepts of opportunism are also very available in both of these examples.
It’s just too easy isn’t it? I also think it’s a clear example of the ad hominem fallacy: my opponent is capitalising on the tragedy therefore my opponent is wrong.
Of course, people often do cynically capitalise on tragedies for their political agendas. But for this to be malicious, what they’re trying to achieve must be spurious. It’s the fact that something’s not warranted that should be the subject of debate — extras about “using” an event are probably ways to take control of the emotional argument.
I do think there’s something silly about using your political ideology to explain an event as soon as it happens. This is because a lot of the information is not in yet. If someone’s willing to pontificate based on very loose information, this suggests that they are triggerhappy and simply think ANY event is an argument against communism/capitalism/jihadism. The best example is the people who instantly concluded the massacre was the work of an Islamic terrorist organisation. And of course by making the prediction so early you set yourself up for cognitive dissonance: your brain may force you to keep to your viewpoint even after disconfirming evidence comes to light, making you look like an idiot. But after most of the facts are available, I think any political “advancement” is fair game and should be attacked because it’s a stupid argument not because it’s “using” the tragedy.
To be continued in the next post.
7 comments ↓
Have we ever wondered that, despite all talks, the explanation might be simple? We are talking about an insane idiot who, taking advantage of the Scandinavian Achilles’ heel (*), wanted to “prove” to the world something existing only in the depts of his perverted mind.
I don’t care if he published 100s of pages of manifestos, as long as there’s nobody else behind this.
The reaction in Scandinavia (I live next door, in Sweden) is that these kind of thing should not happen here. It is a usual reaction of Scandinavians. It will take them long time to understand that.
(*) The Scandinavian Achilles’ heel is twofold:
1. Both Sweden and Norway paralyze during summer because of vacations. This is no exaggeration. The other day I saw a sign at the Stockholm airport that security at SkyCity (part of the airport) would not be operating because of vacations.
2. In terms of privacy, there is, in fact, none in Norway or Sweden. Anyone, with virtually very few clues, can find almost anything (address, telephone, work periods, salary, etc.) about anybody on the Internet. I wouldn’t be surprised if Breivik knew exactly how many of the Oslo police force would be on holiday on the massacre day.
I’m not sure what you mean by simple — are you saying his ideology played no part in his actions? Certainly this Achilles’ heel you describe played a part in the *logistical* explanation but there are several kinds of explanations available (logistical, motivational, psychological) and the existence of one need not preclude the other. For instance, in another country without the same Achilles’ heel, the logistics might have been different (and resulted in fewer/more deaths) but something like this could still have happened for similar ideological/psychological reasons.
I’ll look at the logistics in the next post, maybe it’ll clarify what I mean in terms of logistics then.
Wait or not, the confirmation bias permeates us deeply. But as you say, pausing gives us a bit of a chance of being open to change — but not much.
Concerning Breivik’s horrendous crime: I think both the left and the right could use it to explain their agenda. Breivik insanely acted out the voices of not an insignificant number of Norwegians.
No, I’m not saying his ideology played no part in his actions. Certainly, the guy spent all his life thinking and plotting it. I wrote the response above quickly. You are right, the points I raised could, possibly, have played part in the logistics.
I do hope, however, that his “manifesto” is something that has been created in his sick mind, rather than being a part of an organized, larger, operation.
[...] Michael on a Nadder [...]
Takis — I hope so too but regardless of whether Breivik had associates alas there are plenty of other white nationalist associations in Europe to worry about.
Sabio — I think you’d agree that any ideology could be (and IS) used to explain any event if the proponent is sufficiently motivated, but some explanations are still just plain wrong or stupid. For an entertaining case in point, see Bill O’Reilly’s schtick below!
“Breivik is not a Christian. That’s impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.”
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/oreillys-christianism-and-breiviks.html
[...] ← On “Using” Tragedies to Advance “Your Agenda” [...]
Leave a Comment