Blaming the victim

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.17.1000)]

I've heard some leaders of the religious right say that the Sept. 11
horror is expected punishment for America's evil ways, such as tolerance
for abortion and homosexuality. I've heard similar things from people on
the ideological left, except that the "evil ways" are our foreign
policies. In both cases the victims are being held responsible for the
actions of the attackers. This is also the opinion of the attackers
themselves, who surely believe that the victims have "brought this on
themselves" by their bad behavior.

This is called "blaming the victim". It's a point of view that is
completely consistentwith conventional psychological theory. According
to conventional theory, the behavior of the attacker (or anyone) is
caused by the behavior of the victim. But this is wrong from the
perspective of control theory which says that the victim is not
responsible for any aspect of the behavior of the attacker unless, of
course, the victim is controlling for being attacked.

It's heartening to see that the vast majority of people in this country
and in the world seem to see the Sept. 11 catastrophe from a control
theory perspective; they don't blame the victims. But I think this is
because the vast majority of people are not the attackers. When people
are the attackers-- or simply in a position where they are trying to get
another person to do something -- I think they (we) revert instantly to
conventional "blame the victim" thinking. This reversion seems to happen
whether or not one understands control theory (or anything else, for
that matter). It can be explained by control theory but not solved by it.

Best regards,

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.18.1100)]

I've gotta talk this out with someone and it might as well be me.

I said:

I've heard some leaders of the religious right say that the Sept. 11
horror is expected punishment for America's evil ways, such as

tolerance

for abortion and homosexuality. I've heard similar things from people

on

the ideological left, except that the "evil ways" are our foreign
policies. In both cases the victims are being held responsible for the

actions of the attackers. This is also the opinion of the attackers
themselves, who surely believe that the victims have "brought this on
themselves" by their bad behavior.

OK. I think we're all agreed that its the attackers, not the victims,
who are responsible for the monstrous attack on Sept. 11 and are the
ones to be "blamed" for it. But I think the ideological left is a lot
closer to seeing the correct way to deal with this horrible tragedy than
is the religious right. Both suggest changing US policies so that we
don't get punished any more. But I think the ideological left has a far
better grip on who's wrath is to be avoided: it's the wrath of real,
desperate people not of an imagined, vengeful god .

I think we have to figure out policies that make us look like (and
actually act like) the good guy in the world (and, in particular, in the
middle eastern world) while we cooperate with many nations to _quietly
and unobtrusively_ capture terrorists and have them put on ignominious
display in trials held by respected islamic religious leaders. I hope
that Bush pays attention to the one courageous, intelligent, wise,
decent and compassionate person in his administration -- Colin Powell,
of course -- who, I think, knows how stupid it would be to "strike" at
the terrorists and/or the infrastructure of the countries that harbor
them. The first response to terrorists should be defense and policy
adjustment -- things that don't drive desperate people into the arms of
the terrorists. We should have all kinds of cultural interchange
programs with islamic nations (one's that they'll accept) and try to get
some mutual understanding going. Actually catching the terrorists, and
keeping the number of terrorists from growing, can only be done when we
have normal and good relations with all the countries where terrorists
are trained.

If we do some stupid, useless retaliation bombing or assassination we
will just exacerbate the problem. What we have to do is far more
difficult than nuking every islamic country in the world. What we have
to do is try to make friends with people who see the world completely
differently than we do. I know how difficult this is; indeed, it may
not even be possible (the people you are trying to make friends with can
be _very_ difficult). But the alternative seems a lot worse.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0918.1426)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.18.1100)

I've gotta talk this out with someone and it might as well be me.

As usual, you are the voice of reason. What is more than a little
disconcerting is that exactly one person in Congress, the Democratic
Representative from Oakland, agrees with you and voted her conviction.
Shades of the Tonkin Bay Resolution. As W.H. Auden wrote some sixty years
ago ("September 1, 1939")

The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.18.1100)]

I've gotta talk this out with someone and it might as well be m

If we do some stupid, useless retaliation bombing or assassination we
will just exacerbate the problem. What we have to do is far more
difficult than nuking every islamic country in the world. What we have
to do is try to make friends with people who see the world completely
differently than we do. I know how difficult this is; indeed, it may
not even be possible (the people you are trying to make friends with can
be _very_ difficult). But the alternative seems a lot worse.

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation

So, what in terms of control theory does "making friends" with these people
consist of? As far as I know the topic of "friendship" has not thus far been
defined in control theory terms. Looking at a typical instance of the current
literature on friendship,( Beverley Fehr 1996 _Friendship Processes_ Sage )is
not especially useful. One conception of friendship has been defined in terms
of "shared values." In control theory terms this would appear to be an
impossiblity, but perhaps the conception could be respecified in terms which
would be unobjectionable. If this is what is meant by "friendship" then
friends are "discovered" rather than "made."

I spent some time with Arab students here at UMKC after the attack. What they
seemed to want was confirmation that as far as I was concerned they were despite
their being Arabs OK. This, however, is something I think of as being less
momentous than building a friendship.

looking for clarification/expansion
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

Hello,

I agree with what Rick has said in that the blame for this action is only to
placed on the Perpetrator as they chose to control their perceptions of
America through this tragic act. I think an analyis can go much further
though and take in a lot more of what seems to have happened. I am concerned
in any analysis that it actually is not an analysis but a way of controlling
a perception which is already held.

I think in PCT terms what it does highlight is that what the arab nations
are controlling, and what america are controlling, in the environment of the
middle east are similar variables. What america does in this region is
percieved as a disturbance by the many arabs and they are trying to control
the disturbance. This action by Arab nations is percieved as a disturbance
by America and then they act.

What I think America and the rest of the whole may need to do is investiagte
further what these Arab nations are controling, and the radical elements
within it. Understanding of this may make it easier to be the nice guy. In
addition for some radical groups knowing what they are controling may
clearly indicate to America and the arab world that they are to be stopped/
eradicated etc as the perceptions they are controlling mean they are likely
to do such henous crimes again.

Thanks greatly for this discussion,

Rohan

but it also alarms me that often the parts of PCT are applied that fit the
answer

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU]On Behalf Of William Williams
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 8:36 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Blaming the victim

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.18.1100)]

I've gotta talk this out with someone and it might as well be m

If we do some stupid, useless retaliation bombing or assassination we
will just exacerbate the problem. What we have to do is far more
difficult than nuking every islamic country in the world. What we have
to do is try to make friends with people who see the world completely
differently than we do. I know how difficult this is; indeed, it may
not even be possible (the people you are trying to make friends with can
be _very_ difficult). But the alternative seems a lot worse.

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation

So, what in terms of control theory does "making friends" with these people
consist of? As far as I know the topic of "friendship" has not thus far
been
defined in control theory terms. Looking at a typical instance of the
current
literature on friendship,( Beverley Fehr 1996 _Friendship Processes_
Sage )is
not especially useful. One conception of friendship has been defined in
terms
of "shared values." In control theory terms this would appear to be an
impossiblity, but perhaps the conception could be respecified in terms which
would be unobjectionable. If this is what is meant by "friendship" then
friends are "discovered" rather than "made."

I spent some time with Arab students here at UMKC after the attack. What
they
seemed to want was confirmation that as far as I was concerned they were
despite
their being Arabs OK. This, however, is something I think of as being less
momentous than building a friendship.

looking for clarification/expansion
  Bill Williams

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[From Bruce Gregory 92001.0919.1055)]

So, what in terms of control theory does "making friends" with these people
consist of?

One possibility: avoid acting in ways that interfere with the perceptual
variables others are controlling, i.e., consider the unintended
consequences of actions that stabilize the perceptual variables that _you_
are controlling.

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.19.0850)]

William Williams wrote:

So, what in terms of control theory does "making friends" with these
people consist of?

Bruce Gregory (2001.0919.1055)--

One possibility: avoid acting in ways that interfere with the
perceptual variables others are controlling, i.e., consider the
unintended consequences of actions that stabilize the perceptual
variables that _you_ are controlling.

I agree with this _completely_. But this is not only a very difficult
thing to do; it's often a very difficult thing to _want_ to do.

It's difficult to do because it's often hard to tell what you are doing
that is disturbing other people. Even when people _tell_ you what's
disturbing them it may be difficult to tell what the problem really is.

The other difficulty is even greater. Even if you can figure out what it
is that you are doing that is offensive, you might not _want_ to change
what you are doing because you think it's your "right" to be able to do
it. This is particularly true when what you are doing that is considered
offensive is simply speaking (or writing), ie., expressing yourself. I
understand this problem because I have had to deal with it right here on
CSGNet. I've learned what I'm afraid the US is going to have to learn in
the near future; we have no more "right" to express ourselves freely
(free from the threat of punishment) than what those who are offended by
our expression are willing to give us.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0919.1207)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.19.0850)

The other difficulty is even greater. Even if you can figure out what it
is that you are doing that is offensive, you might not _want_ to change
what you are doing because you think it's your "right" to be able to do
it. This is particularly true when what you are doing that is considered
offensive is simply speaking (or writing), ie., expressing yourself. I
understand this problem because I have had to deal with it right here on
CSGNet. I've learned what I'm afraid the US is going to have to learn in
the near future; we have no more "right" to express ourselves freely
(free from the threat of punishment) than what those who are offended by
our expression are willing to give us.

I think the US's problem have much more to do with actions than with self
expression. The fundamental principle of the current administration appears
to be, "You can count on us to do whatever we think is in our own best
interests at the time." (This may have been the principle guiding previous
administrations, but they were hesitant to rub the world's nose in it.)
Many people understandably do not consider this principle to be an adequate
basis for a lasting partnership. It is possible that if our actions were
consistent with our expressed beliefs we would have many fewer enemies in
the world.

As for speaking one's mind on CSGnet, I don't share your concerns. Problems
seem to arise only when we express our beliefs as though they were
conclusions based on well-tested scientific models.

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.19.1230)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0919.1207) --

I think the US's problem have much more to do with actions than with self
expression.

I think self-expression is an action (and a result). The "US's problem"
from the point of view of the terrorists is likely to be quite different
than it's problem from our point of view. I think what the terrorists
don't like about the US is what we like about it -- secularism, women's
rights, democracy -- that is, the way we express ourselves.

The fundamental principle of the current administration appears to be, "You
can count on us to do whatever we think is in our own best interests at the
time."

While I can't say I care much for the current administration's foreign
(and domestic) policy, that policy can hardly be blamed for the Sept. 11
horror which was apparently in the planning stages for at least 2 years
(also see my first "blaming the victim" post).

It is possible that if our actions were consistent with our expressed
beliefs we would have many fewer enemies in the world.

Again, I don't care to blame the US for other people's actions (acting
as an enemy of the US in this case). I simply cannot believe that the
behavior of the US, bad as it sometimes is, is responsible for the
terrible conditions in the countries that harbor terrorists. The US
didn't make the middle east into a sewer; the leaders in that region did
that all on there own, well before the US was a world power. They just
won't take responsibility for their own actions. So they blame the US
for their problems. I think those countries have to figure out how to
solve their problems on their own, in the context of a world that
contains disturbances which include the behavior of the US and the rest
of the world. Believe me, if the US stopped doing all the things you
think are so bad, these countries would _still_ have big problems and
they would still blame them on the US. But I do think the US has to
adjust its actions so that we don't drive more desperate people into the
ranks of the terrorists. The US has to do this out of self-defense, not
because the actions it adjusts were _really_ wrong.

As for speaking one's mind on CSGnet, I don't share your concerns.
Problems seem to arise only when we express our beliefs as though
they were conclusions based on well-tested scientific models.

Yes. I thought I had the right to "express my beliefs as though they
were conclusions based on well-tested scientific models". But I don't
really have that "right" if I want to avoid ugly abuse. This is the same
as the situation in which the US finds itself. Of course, it was
considerably easier for me to avoid abuse by giving up talking about
things I thought I had a right to talk about then it will be for the US
to avoid terrorism by giving up things (like TV, women's rights, and
secularism) that we think we have a right to. But, as I said, we have no
more "right" to express ourselves freely (free from the threat of
punishment) than what those who are offended by our expression are
willing to give us. Or, I might add, than what we are willing (and able)
to take.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0919.1555)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.19.1230)

Again, I don't care to blame the US for other people's actions (acting
as an enemy of the US in this case). I simply cannot believe that the
behavior of the US, bad as it sometimes is, is responsible for the
terrible conditions in the countries that harbor terrorists.

That might simply represent a failure of imagination. Who armed and
supported the Moslem fundamentalists when they were fighting the U.S.S.R in
Afghanistan and then contributed nothing to the rebuilding of the country
when the cold war "ended"? Who encouraged rebellion against Sadham Hussein
and then stood by while he slaughtered his opponents? Who might now be
reaping what they sowed? Not us. We're the good guys. You can tell by our
white hats...

But I do think the US has to
adjust its actions so that we don't drive more desperate people into the
ranks of the terrorists. The US has to do this out of self-defense, not
because the actions it adjusts were _really_ wrong.

Of course not. It's not wrong to support oppressive regimes in order to
further our own interests. But let's not do it if it upsets lots of
desperate people. I agree.

Yes. I thought I had the right to "express my beliefs as though they
were conclusions based on well-tested scientific models". But I don't
really have that "right" if I want to avoid ugly abuse.

You often imagine the results of experiments so vividly that it seems that
you actually believe they have been conducted. If you stuck to describing
the experiments you feel would be decisive, I suspect little abuse would
come your way. Why not give it try? What have you got to lose?

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.19.1330)]

Me:

Again, I don't care to blame the US for other people's actions
(acting as an enemy of the US in this case).

Bruce Gregory (2001.0919.1555) --

That might simply represent a failure of imagination.

I think it represents a basic understanding of control theory.

If you stuck to describing the experiments you feel would be decisive,
I suspect little abuse would come your way.

Yes. That's how the terrorists feel too. If the US would stick to doing
"the right thing" then little abuse would come its way.

Why not give it try? What have you got to lose?

What I have tried (successfully so far) is not talking about the things
that have led to the abuse. What I have lost is some amount of respect
for the abusers and their apologists.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[ From: Bill Williams UMKC 20 September 2001 7:27 CST ]

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0919.1555)]

> Rick Marken (2001.09.19.1230)
>
>Again, I don't care to blame the US for other people's actions (acting
>as an enemy of the US in this case). I simply cannot believe that the
>behavior of the US, bad as it sometimes is, is responsible for the
>terrible conditions in the countries that harbor terrorists.

That might simply represent a failure of imagination. Who armed and
supported the Moslem fundamentalists when they were fighting the U.S.S.R in
Afghanistan and then contributed nothing to the rebuilding of the country
when the cold war "ended"? Who encouraged rebellion against Sadham Hussein
and then stood by while he slaughtered his opponents? Who might now be
reaping what they sowed? Not us. We're the good guys. You can tell by our
white hats...

>But I do think the US has to
>adjust its actions so that we don't drive more desperate people into the
>ranks of the terrorists. The US has to do this out of self-defense, not
>because the actions it adjusts were _really_ wrong.

Of course not. It's not wrong to support oppressive regimes in order to
further our own interests.

Is it possible to be functionally literate and fail to comprehend that US
policy has sometimes supported oppressive regimes in order to further what are
described as US interests? And, do not the oppressed have a right, and perhaps
even a moral obligation, to strike back?

Best
   Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0920.0956)]

Bill Williams UMKC 20 September 2001 7:27 CST

Is it possible to be functionally literate and fail to comprehend that US
policy has sometimes supported oppressive regimes in order to further what are
described as US interests? And, do not the oppressed have a right, and
perhaps
even a moral obligation, to strike back?

I think your question is properly addressed to Rick. There was a tinge of
irony in my response.

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.20.08900)]

Bill Williams (20 September 2001 7:27 CST) --

Is it possible to be functionally literate and fail to comprehend that US
policy has sometimes supported oppressive regimes in order to further what
are described as US interests?

It's probably possible. But I'm reasonably literate and I know that the
US has made some rather unsavory alliances in order to further US
interests. I judge some of these alliances to have been "good" (like the
alliance with Stalin against Hitler) and some to have been very "bad"
(like the alliances with military dictatorships in South and Central
America). But that's my call; it's not the call of some psychopathic
terrorist. In fact, I don't put much stock in the quality of the moral
evaluation of US foreign policy that is done by people who think that
the mass murder of innocent people is morally acceptable.

And, do not the oppressed have a right, and perhaps even a moral
obligation, to strike back?

Everyone has a "right" to do whatever they cannot be prevented from
doing. They have a "moral obligation" to strike back against those
trying to prevent them from doing what they feel they have a "right" to
do if you or they think they do.

When confronted with terrorism one can try to stop the abuse by
resistance or by giving the terrorists what they want. The latter
strategy is probably the best as long as giving the terrorists what they
want doesn't keep you from getting what you need. This is how I stopped
the abuse against myself on CSGnet; I just gave in to the demands that I
stop talking about certain things.

The terrorists who struck the US have made no demands. They have not
said what the US could do to prevent further attacks. From what I can
glean from interviews with the heads of these terrorist organizations,
the "oppression" they feel from the US is the oppression of freedom of
thought. These terrorists unquestionably feel that they have a moral
obligation to make the world conform to their religious system concept
references. So we could probably stop the terrorism if we all converted
to islam, turned our women into veil wearing chattel and stopped having
pork roast for dinner. It looks like most Americans (me most
enthusiastically included) are not going to go for that so it looks to
me like war; we'll just have to root out the people who have these goals
and do it in a way that is least offensive to the borderline insane who
might be encouraged to join their despicable cause.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0920.1406)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.20.08900)

In fact, I don't put much stock in the quality of the moral
evaluation of US foreign policy that is done by people who think that
the mass murder of innocent people is morally acceptable.

If I recall correctly, a majority of the American people took exactly this
position in a recent poll.

[From Bill Williams UMKC 20 September 2001 1:00 CST ]

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.20.08900)]

Bill Williams (20 September 2001 7:27 CST) --

> Is it possible to be functionally literate and fail to comprehend that US
> policy has sometimes supported oppressive regimes in order to further what
> are described as US interests?

It's probably possible. But I'm reasonably literate and I know that the
US has made some rather unsavory alliances in order to further US
interests. I judge some of these alliances to have been "good" (like the
alliance with Stalin against Hitler) and some to have been very "bad"
(like the alliances with military dictatorships in South and Central
America). But that's my call; it's not the call of some psychopathic
terrorist. In fact, I don't put much stock in the quality of the moral
evaluation of US foreign policy that is done by people who think that
the mass murder of innocent people is morally acceptable.

First: How do you know these people are "psychopathic?" It seems to me that they
carried out a quite effective strike. I'm sure their associates don't view them
as psychopathic. It is my understanding that interviews conducted with captured
"terrorists" disclose that they are well within a range of normal functioning.

Second: Since they were on the recieving end of US policy, who are you to say
that "it's not their call to make an evaluation of US foreign policy." Whether
you think its "their call" or not, they formed an opinion and acted upon it. So
it appears to me that they made it "their call" and you can't prevent them from
doing so-- that is evaluating US policy. When Bruce Gregory talks about a
failure of imagination, it seems to me that part of what is involved is an
unwillingness to consider in all seriousness why some people might reach
conclusions we find disturbing with their being crazy.

Third: Who are you thinking about when you say, "people who think that the mass
murder of innocent people is morally acceptable." I am confident that those who
carried out the strike didn't see it as an act of "mass murder of innocent
people." So, let's be explicit.

If to borrow a phrase, we attempt to go up a level, the entire matter may come
down to a question of who's "innocent people" we are going to be concerned
about.

By the way, I for one think you ought to feel free to say anything you please.
I've come to the conclusion that as a causal matter, speach doesn't hurt anyone.

Best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

RE: Blaming the victim
[From Rupert Young (2001.09.20.2030 BST)]

Agree with your points. You may be interested in the attached letter I sent to the Independent newspaper in response to a letter saying that the airlines were responsible for the attacks. Hope you don’t mind me using your subject line as the title.

Regards,

Rupert

Letter to the Editor: Blaming the victim
Sir,
I read Meg Howarth’s letter (20 Septmeber) citing the shelving of the Al Gore airport security report as a cause of the terrorist attacks with a sick feeling. Her tack of holding the victim responsible is an all too common “line of reasoning” but represnts a deep misunderstanding and ignorance of how the world works, of cause and effect. Just because event B may not have happened without the preceding event A does not mean that A is the cause of B. Thinking it is is rather like saying the battered wife is responsible for the beatings from her wife-beating husband because of her nagging or that a rape victim was “asking for it” due to her “provocative” dress. Perhaps, we should hold Osama bin Laden’s mum responsible because if she hadn’t had sex with Laden senior, junior wouldn’t have been born etc, etc.

Everyone should be clear, the only ones responsible for the attacks were the attackers themselves. They chose to get on the planes, they chose to hijack the planes, they chose to fly into the buildings. They chose to kill 5,000 people. Along with their accomplices, they and they alone are responsible. Any relevant policies of the US, no matter how unwise or unfair, are not a cause of the attackes. Howarth’s claim that the attacks were “a crime committed by the US against its own people” is taking a warped line of reasoning to a perverse extreme.

I have doubts about the purpose or success of any military action. As far as long term solutions are concerned, I think two things are essential. Islamic leaders should impress on their followers that the Koran is against terrorism and the rich West must realise that there is only one world and any poverty and injustices that exist, wherever they may, should be fought by all of us. Certainly, if we do not want the resentment of many people in the developing world we should cease any exploitation of them and all stand together with the aim of eradicating those poverties and injustices. It can be done.

Regards,

Rupert Young

Computer Consultant

42 B, Russell St

Reading

RG1 7XH

email: ryoung@seebeyond.com

Mobile: +44 (0) 7879 425 400

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.20.1430)]

Bill Williams (20 September 2001 1:00 CST)

First: How do you know these people are "psychopathic?"

That's my perception of them. Maybe I just should have said they are
"assholes" from my point of view and avoided the clinical
implications;-)

Second: Since they were on the recieving end of US policy, who are you to say
that "it's not their call to make an evaluation of US foreign policy."

I'm afraid I said it incorrectly. Of course they are free to evaluate
and criticize US policy. They are not free to kill innocent people as
their means of expressing their evaluation (not if they can be caught
and jailed, anyway).

When Bruce Gregory talks about a failure of imagination, it seems to me
that part of what is involved is an unwillingness to consider in all
seriousness why some people might reach conclusions we find disturbing
with their being crazy.

I already explained why I think these people have reached their
disturbing conclusions. I think it's because America is a symbol of
principles -- freedom of thought, secularism and tolerance -- that are
inconsistent with their system concepts. They hate the fact that our
women have almost complete control of their own lives (and run around in
cute, short skirts while their running their companies), that we don't
force a particular religious view on people and that we are tolerant of
diversity.

Third: Who are you thinking about when you say, "people who think that the mass
murder of innocent people is morally acceptable." I am confident that those who
carried out the strike didn't see it as an act of "mass murder of innocent
people." So, let's be explicit.

I don't care if they saw it as an ice cream sundae. What _I_ saw was
grisly mass murder carried out by people who obviously thought it was a
fine thing to do. It's the terrorist asshole scum who are the people who
I was thinking about.

If to borrow a phrase, we attempt to go up a level, the entire matter
may come down to a question of who's "innocent people" we are going
to be concerned about.

I am concerned about _all_ of them. Apparently you believe the US has
committed or is an accomplice to the murder of innocent people in the
middle east. But even if the US is guilty of this (which I very
seriously doubt) I don't see the murder of innocent US civilians as the
appropriate way to deal with whatever problem they have over there. But
even worse than the murder is the expression of glee by the perpetrators
and their sympathizers.

I can think of one time when the US resorted to terrorism as the means
of getting another country to change its foreign policy. This was
Hiroshima/Nagasaki. It was a horrible mass murder. But, for me, even
though many more people were killed, Hiroshima/Nagasaki is not as bad as
the Sept 11 nightmare. No one -- Truman especially -- took (or
evidenced) any joy in the killing of innocents. Indeed, there was
terrible anguish. There was no mystery for Japan about how to stop US
terrorism either; Japan just had to change its war policy. In the Sept
11 case, the terrorists are jumping for joy about the deaths and we have
no idea what we could do to prevent further massacres.
Hiroshima/Nagasaki was a tragedy. Sept. 11, 2001 was, from my point of
view, pure, unadulterated evil. Fortunately, the vast majority of people
living in the US see it exactly as I do. That's how I know I'm living in
a civilized society, despite the occasional Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons.

By the way, I for one think you ought to feel free to say anything you please.
I've come to the conclusion that as a causal matter, speach doesn't hurt anyone.

I'm glad to hear it but others don't feel the same way. I'm not going to
change their minds about it and, frankly, it's more important to me to
just avoid the abuse than continue asserting my "right" to say what I
like about certain things about which I now happily say nothing.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.20.1432)]

Rupert Young (2001.09.20.2030 BST)

Agree with your points. You may be interested in the attached letter
I sent to the Independent newspaper in response to a letter saying
that the airlines were responsible for the attacks. Hope you don't
mind me using your subject line as the title.

Wonderful letter, Rupert! I feel honored that you would use my subject
line.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0920.1741)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.20.1430)

I'm glad to hear it but others don't feel the same way. I'm not going to
change their minds about it and, frankly, it's more important to me to
just avoid the abuse than continue asserting my "right" to say what I
like about certain things about which I now happily say nothing.

Rick, I had no idea you were so sensitive. I'll have to be very careful
about what I say in the future.