Est. May 2008

17 December, 2012


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Inigo Montoya)
How many times, after massacres like the most recent one in Connecticut, do we have to hear the media talkingheads, the talkinghead ‘psychiatrists/ologists’, and everybody else tell us that these homicidal maniacs were ‘disturbed’?

The restaurant doesn’t make your food the way you wanted it.  You’re disturbed.

Gas prices go up ten cents a gallon.  You’re disturbed.

The ATM machine is down for repairs.  You’re disturbed.

You’re going to be late for work.  You’re disturbed.

You put on body-armor, weapon-up, and slaughter five, ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred people.

You’re ‘disturbed’?

No, you’re maniacal.  You’re homicidal.  You’re so far beyond ‘disturbed’ there may not be an adequate term for what your problem is.

Was Hitler ‘disturbed’?  What about Pol Pot?  Stalin?  Charlie Manson?  Ed Gein?  How about any of the lovely folks on this list?

When you call someone like the guy who butchered the kids in Connecticut, the guy who gunned down the folks in Aurora, the guy who gunned down the Sikhs at their gurdwara, the guy who gunned down Gabby Giffords and the folks around her, the two kids who turned Columbine High into a shooting gallery, the guy who turned Virginia Tech into a free-fire zone, and all the rest … when you call them ‘disturbed’ you diminish the violence that they did simply because being ‘disturbed’ doesn’t mean being homicidal.

And if you want to use the term ‘disturbed’ as indicating those folks needed some kind of help, then answer this one: why didn’t they get it?  In practically every recent case (from Columbine to today, at least), once the smoke has cleared and news reporters actually start interviewing and investigating (rather than making stuff up out of thin air and whole cloth) it’s inevitable we start hearing reports that ‘so-and-so just didn’t seem right in the head’, and ‘I knew that guy was trouble’, and ‘He did crazy stuff’, and on and on and on.  These people by and large aren’t professional shrinks, and if they saw something ‘off’ with the person who later went sideways, what went wrong when these folks were in the presence of the shrink (we’re hearing that at least a few of them had encounters with psychiatric professionals) and the shrink did nothing – at least nothing that amounted to keeping them from harming themselves or others.

Oh, that’s right…we don’t want to make anybody feel bad about their problems, and we don’t want to infringe on their rights by involuntarily committing them to psychiatric care.

In fact, by calling these people ‘disturbed’, the message seems awfully clear to me (at least): these people weren’t and aren’t responsible for their actions – it’s not their fault, they’re victims of the system/victims of bullying/victims of whatever-you-want-to-dredge-up-as-an-excuse.

Our oh, so PC world doesn’t allow us to even think that people could very well be harboring evil thoughts, thoughts which might not take a whole lot of stimulation to produce fruit.  Everybody’s inherently good, they tell us, then stand slack-jawed in stunned incomprehension when these ‘inherently good’ people go south in such spectacular fashions. 

I’ve written about that whole ‘inherently good’ nonsense before – in a nutshell, if someone does something to you that you don’t like and your immediate reaction is anything other than, ‘That person is absolutely wonderful’, you’re not an inherently good person.  And trying to wrap the false notion of the inherent goodness of everyone in the face of such things as Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Oak Creek, Portland, and other places is like trying to staple fog to a billboard.

It’s a waste of time, and people know you’re making an ass of yourself.

It’s time to address the real problem we’ve got with things like this, and we have to stop whitewashing the problem – inherent evil – with PC platitudes.

Otherwise, we’re all toast.

No comments: