Beyond tragic. Makes me think of Vallow and the rest of her sick band.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/qanon-matthew-taylor-coleman-killed-kids-california-serpent-dna-conspiracy/

A 2 year old boy and a 10 month old baby girl. *sigh*

Ugh.

Predictable.

At a certain point the conspiracy crap gets in so deep it feeds itself and becomes a run away freight train. I see this tragedy as in the came category as those who laid siege on Congress. Same fuel.

Agreed, completely. There was a time in which it was easy enough to dismiss the conspiracy crew as harmless crackpots. This is no longer the case. Though this news article is horrifying and, obviously, an extreme example, there are plenty others. From the lizard alien nutcase that blew up downtown Nashville to the QAnon troglodytes that stormed the capital. And, of course, to legions of Creationists, COVIDiots and climate deniers. They aren't at war so much with a differing view as reality itself. Enough already.

Interesting how this stuff appeals to the most instinctual and "natural" in aggressive behaviors in us humans. It excites Christians and Conspiracy people alike to behave like everyone's reality must conform to their interpretation and to feel like they have control in this reality they behave like beasts.

Jesus is a serpent and not a servant. Covid is from God not the government. And we all have snakes on the brain.

Sad.

You just lit a light for me. I have long been irritated by the phrase "my truth/your truth/my reality/your reality" that attempt to give gravitas to selfish points of view.

What those phrases represent is a very convenient "interpretation" of truth and reality.

Truth and reality do not need interpretations. They need further study and further scrutiny and need to be learned from as they stand on their own.

"MY TRUTH" is the worst oxymoron of all.

Having worked with actual psychotics and also in forensics, I say to you:
very few monstrosities are committed by psychotics.
The vast majority are committed by "good, law-abiding, normal people."

Sleep well tonight.

Chilling!

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The vast majority are committed by "good,
> law-abiding, normal people."

> Sleep well tonight.

With not going out much and few visitors due to you-know-what I've recently become hooked on the Forensic Science shows on TV just for something to do. I enjoy the analysis and information. However, not so much all the blood.

It didn't take long to realize that while the first thought in the midst of appalling and merciless bloodbaths is that some monster is on the loose, it by far turns out to be the nearest and dearest that commit the majority of atrocities. First the authorities are out looking for some monster while others care for (and dissect) pitiful victims who have suffered terrible ends. Next they are arresting, charging and convicting the person the deceased knew, loved, trusted, most.

We tend to look for the monster under the bed while overlooking the one in the closet.

{{shudder}}

The Moonies were the nickname for the "Unification Church"* of Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon. They were active in the 60s into the 70s. A Unification remnant in Pennsylvania made the news a few years ago when they had a "blessing of the guns" service. Sort of a St. Francis "bring in your pets for blessings" service on very bad acid.

Moon taught that Satan, a.k.a. the Serpent, had physical, sexual intercourse with Eve, and the human race is descended from that pairing--not Able or Seth. Therefore, each human being (I'm looking at you, E.O D!) is literally the spawn of Satan.

It was Jesus' mission to marry and have children cleansed from this satanic DNA. Although he achieved spiritual redemption (the Crucifixion) he failed by dying too early--before he got around to marrying and producing non-satanic DNA to cleanse the human race.

Damn it all!

Moon, being the "Lord of the 2nd Advent," was to rectify this, by cleansing humanity of this evil stuff. For the Moonies (like LDS), marriage is a supremely important spiritual act. Only just before getting married are (or were) Moonies allowed to participate in the "Wine Ceremony," their "communion service, when prospective couples partake of the sacramental...beverage. It was composed of wine, dozens of rare Middle Eastern, Korean, and American herbs and essences, and --literally--some blood taken from Sun Myung Moon and his wife.

Then they were off to one of those mass weddings where hundreds, even thousands, of couples got married.

Aren't cults fun!

*Full name was, "The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity."

When on my mission in Switzerland in the 80s, the first time I taught a discussion was to a group of Moonies. The agreement was that after the discussion we would have to watch their film. We agreed.

We gave the Joseph Smith discussion, showed them the lame filmstrip, and bore testimony. Crickets.

They pulled out a two reel film projector and showed us a film about Reverend Moon and how the Unification church started. They were convinced that they were right - just as convinced as we were that we were right. It was very unsettling.

Looking back I can see how the Mormons were just as looney as the Moonies.

Looney as Moonies.

Kinda rhymes. Made me laugh.

But yeah. People easily believe very strange things. To which I can attest.

So you don't like moonies ?

Of course, they were love-bombing me, hoping I'd join. Their gift of discernment was probably equal to your average ward bishop.

I wonder how many of those mass-wedding couples stayed the course?

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
- Francois Marie Arouet de Voltaire

Seems apropos.

I dislike that quote and I'm surprised you used it. You seem to be a devout reasoner.

How exactly did QAnon kill those kids?

From the linked article:

"Coleman was detained at the border checkpoint, where during an interview with an FBI agent "he explained that he was enlightened by QAnon and Illuminati conspiracy theories and was receiving visions and signs revealing that his wife, A.C., possessed serpent DNA and had passed it on to his children," according to the affidavit."

Perhaps it's a case of a person acting on his own (not directly instigated by the larger organization) but "inspired" by its ideology. So the question then is how much responsibility does a third party have for what its adherents do. I would say a lot. There are actually limits to free speech at some point (can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, right?). However, we seem to have bypassed that principle in recent times, with the predictable catastrophic results.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2021 02:35PM by Nightingale.

I think Voltaire, and BoJ, are right. There will always be insane people who commit insane crimes. But there is a vast swathe of people who might be termed inane, meaning boring and characterless individuals who are easily swayed by popular pressure.

Take Hitler's Germany. There were always Hitler, his coterie, and the sociopaths in the Brown Shirts and perhaps the SS. Those people did what such people do. But where things got truly horrific was when the masses of the inane, the lemmings, became convinced of a higher purpose and mission and in that superficial conviction allowed themselves to become the instruments of great evil: the bureaucrats who managed the trains and the incinerators, for instance, but also the soulless and vindictive people who reported on their neighbors or the Jews hidden in the loft.

When society is healthy, the insane and criminal will continue to act impulsively and cruelly. But when society is in the throes of mass delusion, the inane will do those things too; and that emboldens the more thoroughly evil to go much farther than they would otherwise have done. That's Voltaire's point and I think it is demonstrable true.

The Danites, Mountain Meadows, the occasional murders of dissident Mormons are all examples of how an absurd ideology motivates otherwise decent people to do indecent things. Then there are the Laffertys, the Vallows, the boys who killed Matthew Shepherd, the Mormons who supported Prop 22 and then Prop 8 in California despite the fact that their efforts led to suicides.

Would there have been an attempt to overthrow the US government in the absence of QAnon and the Big Lie? Would conservative white people have beaten and tased and gassed Capitol police officers? I really don't think so. Would there have been a mass movement against the vaccines without the false prophet and his acolytes? No, as Voltaire observed, getting people to abandon reality and embrace absurdities transformed, and transforms, vast numbers of the inane, the lemmings, into enthusiastic agents of evil.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2021 03:08PM by Tevai.

>...as Voltaire observed, getting people to abandon reality and embrace absurdities transformed, and transforms, vast numbers of the inane, the lemmings, into enthusiastic agents of evil.

This is beyond terrifying.

I don't think this is apple to apples with Nazis.

The re-masculinizing of America to make it great again shares some similarities sure, but laying these murders at the feet of whoever is what you are seeing as Hitler is as myopic in my opinion and the people easily swayed by rhetoric because it feels good to them.

Did the woman injure her husband willingly by her decision to not vaccinate when he let her decide in another recent article posted here? Can the blame be put on politics for people in unfamiliar circumstances acting "insane?" The argument from a wave of inanity is just too broad brush.

This country is very religious. Should I think all the religions teaching things including Abraham sacrificing his son should be considered murders when a father does it because he thinks God wanted him to do it?

I completely disagree with the politically rolling up the reasons to QAnon or anyone else in this father's murder of his children.

Voltaire was in "make believe." It takes a lot to make a person believe. People usually do this on their own without having to be made to believe. I doubt the appeal of QAnon is coercive enough or backed by government enough to blame the murder of these children on it.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think this is apple to apples with Nazis.

Doesn't it matter which Nazis we are discussing? I was not comparing the Danites or the child-killing father with Hitler. Hitler and his associates aren't particularly interesting; such sociopathic leaders are a dime a dozen. My focus was on the nameless, faceless followers of Hitler or whatever other charismatic leader has ascended the podium. The interesting human question is what makes "ordinary" people commit enormities like the slaughter of innocent Jews, Romani, Slavs, gay people, and the disabled before they go happily home for dinner with their children? What is so weak in their character as to permit their participation in evil?


--------------
> The re-masculinizing of America to make it great
> again shares some similarities sure, but laying
> these murders at the feet of whoever is what you
> are seeing as Hitler is as myopic in my opinion
> and the people easily swayed by rhetoric because
> it feels good to them.

Since my focus is on the common people who were transformed into agents of evil, I am not comparing anyone to Hitler. I am addressing the weakness of most human beings and their amenability to manipulation by whoever is ascendant at any given time. My focus is on Hannah Arendt's ordinary Germans, the banal people with their banal atrocities.


--------------
> Did the woman injure her husband willingly by her
> decision to not vaccinate when he let her decide
> in another recent article posted here? Can the
> blame be put on politics for people in unfamiliar
> circumstances acting "insane?" The argument from a
> wave of inanity is just too broad brush.

Yeah, I don't understand this point. Do you really believe that the vaccination debate is *not" influenced by politics? How many people raged at school meetings when their children were required to get the MMR vaccine? What is different this time? And how do you describe the geographic pattern of vaccinations without reference to contemporary politics? How do you explain the January Insurrection of middle- and upper-class white people without politics?


--------------
> This country is very religious. Should I think all
> the religions teaching things including Abraham
> sacrificing his son should be considered murders
> when a father does it because he thinks God wanted
> him to do it?

I didn't say anything like that. I said that persuading people to ignore factual reality makes it easier for them to act atrociously. I stand by that. There is no doubt that the Abrahamic sacrifice and the murder of Laban played a role in tipping exceptionally weak people into committing grievous sins on some occasions. There is no question that Mussolini had a more profound effect in his country, Hitler in his, Stalin in his, Jim Jones in his community, Joseph Smith in his, etc. Those men differ greatly in their individual character and morality, but that does not matter if the question--my question--is why normal people are so willing to surrender their judgment to those monsters and thereby become monsters themselves.

There is no doubt that part of that is the leaders' success in divorcing the followers from reality; in the German case, citizens were taught to view Jews as the enemy; the same happened in Mormonism when JS dehumanized the gentiles and in Utah when BY dehumanized the Fancher party. Separate people from facts, tell them that "what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening," and you increase the likelihood that those people will act in morally ungrounded ways.


----------------
> I completely disagree with the politically rolling
> up the reasons to QAnon or anyone else in this
> father's murder of his children.

Are you "completely" familiar with all the evidence pro and con? I'm not, and I doubt you are. Surely the appropriate position is therefore to recognize that, according to his own words, the father and his actions were based in part on QAnon. Were there other factors? Almost inevitably since people are always motivated by clusters of sometimes incompatible considerations. But that does not exculpate any single major factor.

The January 6 debacle is a better example. Without QAnon and the Big Lie the vast majority of those people would have stayed home, running their little companies and dining at their country clubs. Something different happened, though; something tipped the balance so that not only did loons like the Shaman but also average citizens chartered airplanes or booked seats and took up arms against their government.


-----------------
> Voltaire was in "make believe." It takes a lot to
> make a person believe.

No, it does not. There is not a fully rational person on the planet, and we are all influenced by those around us and those on TV. The susceptibility may differ from person to person, but the vast majority of people are highly malleable--and especially when under the influence of a charismatic Pied Piper.


------------------------
> People usually do this on
> their own without having to be made to believe.

I disagree. People absolutely *want* to believe, and they believe that to which they are exposed. That is why people in the US are predominantly Christian, people in India are predominantly Hindu, and people in Northern Europe are generally humanitarian secularists. It is in my mind implausible that people devise their own belief systems: they in fact make minor changes in the systems to which they are exposed.

Which shifts the emphasis to what the systems are, how they are manipulated, and what changes in average behavior we see as a result.


------------------
> I
> doubt the appeal of QAnon is coercive enough or
> backed by government enough to blame the murder of
> these children on it.

That's very possibly true. But I didn't say QAnon and the Big Lie were the determinative factors, just that they were among the factors involved. What Voltaire was saying is that a charismatic sociopath, however defined, can alter average behavior by average people. I think that is historically beyond dispute. It is certainly evident in the behavior of anti-vaccers and American Express-holding "patriots" who try to overturn elections. They didn't come up with those ideas themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2021 04:49PM by Lot's Wife.

"I said that persuading people to ignore factual reality makes it easier for them to act atrociously. I stand by that."

A woman makes a bad decision for her husband based upon prayer.

A man kills his children based upon his belief their DNA from their mother is bad.

How exactly were they persuaded and who persuaded these people to these acts?

I didn't bring in the politics so I don't think I need to answer your questions about what is political or not. And you also mention religious leaders in the same reply as political leaders. This is a very broad brush. And it is comparing these "banal" acts with broader movements and leaders implicating them as if there were a cause and effect relationship.

Humans are great at rationalizing. How do we know that this man wasn't looking for a reason to hurt his wife through killing their children? How do we know that a woman praying about a virus was acting based upon some dear leader's advice.

You go too far in my opinion and I stand by that.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I said that persuading people to ignore factual
> reality makes it easier for them to act
> atrociously."

Do you disagree with that statement?


---------------
> I didn't bring in the politics so I don't think I
> need to answer your questions about what is
> political or not. And you also mention religious
> leaders in the same reply as political leaders.
> This is a very broad brush.

Do you believe that politics differs form religion in the way that it changes thinking and behavior? Is one more factual than the other?


---------------------------
> And it is comparing
> these "banal" acts with broader movements and
> leaders implicating them as if there were a cause
> and effect relationship.

I never indicated any "cause-and-effect relationship" regarding any individual case.. Leaders are never 100% responsible for the atrocities of their followers, and they are almost always responsible in some degree. But the audiences comprise dozens or hundreds or thousands or millions of individuals of varying degrees of malleability. So when a leader increases the pressure on a group, the number of people who will be triggered into doing unethical or evil things increases.

Do you disagree with that?


------------------
> Humans are great at rationalizing. How do we know
> that this man wasn't looking for a reason to hurt
> his wife through killing their children?

Precisely. In that scenario the leader gave the man the excuse, the extra quantum of motivation, that he needed. And to that extent the leader bears some responsibility. Whether that extent is 100% or 50% or 5% depends on the listener. All Voltaire said was that the more aggressive the leader, the more followers will behave egregiously.

Do you disagree with that?



-------------------
> How do we
> know that a woman praying about a virus was acting
> based upon some dear leader's advice.

We don't. But I never said we did. What I said is that *on average* a charismatic leader can lead a group of people to do more evil things, or more virtuous things. It isn't a matter of cause-and-effect, just probability.


-------------------
> You go too far in my opinion and I stand by that.

EB, you are misrepresenting my views. I say merely that if you heat up a gas, some molecules are going to smash into each other more violently than without the added heat. When a political leader pushes his followers harder and harder, some of those individuals are going to act more extremely than they otherwise would.

You insist that I am saying there is a cause-and-effect relationship on an individual level. That may be the case ex post facto but, as I have said several times, it is not the case ex ante. Neither Voltaire, nor BoJ, nor I have indicated anything like what you ascribe to us.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Elder Berry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "I said that persuading people to ignore
> factual
> > reality makes it easier for them to act
> > atrociously."
>
> Do you disagree with that statement?
>
In the context of this thread or generally? Facts are not always reality. We don't agree on what is reality from one person to the next.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

We don't know what people choose to believe is based upon. They could claim someone made them believe something where it was only within the convenience of a larger movement they could give freedom to their feelings and feel justified in committing atrocities.

> ---------------
> > I didn't bring in the politics so I don't think
> I
> > need to answer your questions about what is
> > political or not. And you also mention
> religious
> > leaders in the same reply as political leaders.
> > This is a very broad brush.
>
> Do you believe that politics differs form religion
> in the way that it changes thinking and behavior?
> Is one more factual than the other?
>

Are you baitng me?

> ---------------------------
> > And it is comparing
> > these "banal" acts with broader movements and
> > leaders implicating them as if there were a
> cause
> > and effect relationship.
>
> I never indicated any "cause-and-effect
> relationship" regarding any individual case..
> Leaders are never 100% responsible for the
> atrocities of their followers, and they are almost
> always responsible in some degree. But the
> audiences comprise dozens or hundreds or thousands
> or millions of individuals of varying degrees of
> malleability. So when a leader increases the
> pressure on a group, the number of people who will
> be triggered into doing unethical or evil things
> increases.
>
> Do you disagree with that?
>

Of course not. And this is relevant because it is your exigis of the quote?

> ------------------
> > Humans are great at rationalizing. How do we
> know
> > that this man wasn't looking for a reason to
> hurt
> > his wife through killing their children?
>
> Precisely. In that scenario the leader gave the
> man the excuse, the extra quantum of motivation,
> that he needed. And to that extent the leader
> bears some responsibility. Whether that extent is
> 100% or 50% or 5% depends on the listener. All
> Voltaire said was that the more aggressive the
> leader, the more followers will behave
> egregiously.
>
> Do you disagree with that?
>
>

I don't know. I don't get that from the quote but I don't know the background or context of it. I just know the sound bite.

> -------------------
> > How do we
> > know that a woman praying about a virus was
> acting
> > based upon some dear leader's advice.
>
> We don't. But I never said we did. What I said
> is that *on average* a charismatic leader can lead
> a group of people to do more evil things, or more
> virtuous things. It isn't a matter of
> cause-and-effect, just probability.
>
>
> -------------------
> > You go too far in my opinion and I stand by
> that.
>
> EB, you are misrepresenting my views. I say
> merely that if you heat up a gas, some molecules
> are going to smash into each other more violently
> than without the added heat. When a political
> leader pushes his followers harder and harder,
> some of those individuals are going to act more
> extremely than they otherwise would.
>
> You insist that I am saying there is a
> cause-and-effect relationship on an individual
> level. That may be the case ex post facto but, as
> I have said several times, it is not the case ex
> ante. Neither Voltaire, nor BoJ, nor I have
> indicated anything like what you ascribe to us.

Well people aren't gas just vessels for it.

I don't intend to bait you.

In my mind, however, you cannot come up with a definition of religion that doesn't include political ideology. The main difference is God, but until about a century ago roughly half the believers in the world did not recognize a supreme being; and even today 20-30% of them do not. So a universal definition of religion must omit that concept. What we are then left with is a belief system that 1) explains some or much of which we cannot perceive ourselves, 2) gives life a purpose greater than the material wellbeing of the individual, and 3) defines our ethical obligations to others, sometimes multiple tiers of others.

If you accept anything like that definition, then there's no functional (that's a key adjective since it doesn't require an evaluation of truth) difference between the religious and the political. The question then becomes whether the belief motivates evil behavior, and we know that in countless instances it has. I am not, nor was Voltaire, claiming that this is binary; to the contrary, people are always motivated by a combination of things. But in many, many cases both religious and political movements contribute significantly to the motivation of people to do evil things to others.

Voltaire was an exceptionally subtle thinker and he saw the way that in many instances politics and religion both inclined people towards the denigration and mistreatment of others. I am fortuitously reading his Letters Regarding the English Nation right now, and the book is full of discussion of religious schisms, Quakers, Anglicans, Catholicism, but also John Locke, government in general and in England particularly, Pascal, Descrates and Isaac Newton--and remarkably timely--even smallpox inoculation. He was perfectly aware of the differences between peoples and their varying susceptibilities to manipulation in the name of God or Mammon.

That sophistication should be borne in mind when contemplating his quip about belief and atrocity. I think he was right. The context of his argument is that to one degree or another leaders influence individuals, and the more the pressure the higher the number of people who will act immorally or group together to do so. You are right that human beings are more than molecules of gas in Brownian motion. But in either case it's a mistake to ignore the heat that is applied to the system because that energy changes outcomes. Any human autonomy is circumscribed by the laws of nature as well as chance.

All Voltaire did was note how in totalitarian polities and religions, more counter-factual enthusiasm means more capacity for evil. I don't think that is debatable.

Well, well. I thought I made a totallly obvious statement, and EB is in such deep disagreement that it is a hill worth dying on.

Really?

LW has the right of what I think the quote means. Absurd beliefs are used as justification for atrocious actions. It’s only the lunatic fringe that go over the edge, but it is the absurd beliefs that sends them over the edge.

The LDS endowment was originally a justification for polygamy. The death oaths in the endowment were originally meant to cow people into silence about polygamy. This is absurd.

The Lafferty brothers thought their sister-in-law was breaking her covenant to support the new and everlasting covenant of (their) polygamy, so they executed the first penalty of the endowment, slitting her throat from ear to ear. They slit her infant daughter’s throat for I’m not sure why. These are atrocities.

Lor Vallow thinks she is a god. That’s a bit of a stretch of LDS doctrine, but in the ballpark. She seems to believe that absurdity with enough fervor that she is deemed not capable of participating in her own defense in court. Not only does the judge agree with this finding, but so does the prosecutor. The prosecutor usually fights such findings.

She is otherwise a functioning adult, who is alleged to have been involved in five murders, planned and carried out with enough skill that she got away with it for months. Atrocity.

MyPillow Guy is claiming that Former Guy will be reinstated as president by acclimation more or less, starting tomorrow. Bonkers level absurd. Dept of Homeland Security is on alert because of the number of people who believe this absurdity, and there is a threat of violence.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s only the lunatic fringe
> that go over the edge,

I disagree with that. There are multiple "edges." A German railway worker or clerk might not shoot anyone, but under Nazi propaganda he will comfortably sign off on mass murder. A nationalistic Netherlander would not shoot a despised minority but she may well tell the occupation army that there's a Jewish family in that attic. A Chinese laborer might not normally speak ill of his child's teacher, but under re-education pressure he may well stone the poor man.

Aggressive and sustained rhetoric can push some to kill, others to shun, still more to dehumanize and steal, still others to walk by a starving street urchin. The entirety of society is thus pushed some margin in the direction of barbarity.

That's what I was getting at with my physics analogy. You can't be sure what will happen to any given particle under great pressure, but you can make accurate generalizations about the changed behavior of the "community" under such conditions.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2021 10:31PM by Lot's Wife.

The quote makes me think about something that occurred to me when I read the OP. Does having been Mormon and seen our way out through reason or critical thinking or just plain claiming one's self, act as an inoculation against actions based on the ideas of others? Has becoming EXMO given us at least a degree of immunity against the insanity of buying into evidence-less, speculative, conspiracy theories and god theories?

Clearly some people are ripe for picking and others not. So Voltaire got it right. And what is implied is that if they can't make you believe absurdities, they can't make you commit atrocities. You'll have to figure a way to commit the atrocities on your own. :)

How many people are going into battle with no armor?

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The quote makes me think about something that
> occurred to me when I read the OP. Does having
> been Mormon and seen our way out through reason
> or critical thinking or just plain claiming one's
> self, act as an inoculation against actions based
> on the ideas of others? Has becoming EXMO given
> us at least a degree of immunity against the
> insanity of buying into evidence-less,
> speculative, conspiracy theories and god
> theories?

No, as evidenced by every exmo anti-vaxxer who posts here.

Good point.

Well. There is that. Sadly.

Are the serpent DNA and Qanon stories a ruse for an insanity plea since he was caught ?

Sounds reasonable.

This was very sad to read,

https://theconversation.com/men-and-women-kill-their-children-in-roughly-equal-numbers-and-we-need-to-understand-why-153527

Probably because most people who should be institutionalized are out on the streets. Congress had comprehensive mental health reform passed and ready to go when Ronald Reagan vetoed it. So, when someone is a danger to society, nothing can be done until they actually hurt someone.

I think the father has serpent DNA.