It is balantly obvious from context, but the phrasing is ambiguous. But considering the context (and that I was replying to earlier posts where I did explicitly talk about the murderer’s stated motivation and relatives) I don’t think harping on it is done in good faith.
When are you finally going to be moved to your anagram username?
You know, i have trouble with pronouns, too. My husband often prevents me from writing something like that.
And yes, context. But i had to read it twice. And even then, you didn’t really answer the question, or give any context. The problem isn’t that he understands that people sometimes break. I understand that, too. So do a lot of people. The problem was that he picked an incredibly fucking bad time to point that out. And in a way that suggests he is maybe a little broken, too. And @Spice_Weasel said that clearly. And you didn’t.
I wish more people would say ‘hurt people hurt people’. I wish we would use that truth to look more systemically at patterns of violence and hatred and talk about what we can do to make it less likely people become criminal/abusers/killers in the first place.
“Hurt people hurt people” is not a call to absolve people accountability, nor is it a declaration that victims of hurt deserve it. I wish we could talk about the ways that violence begets violence without it being drowned out by cries that it’s excusing behavior.
This reminds me of “don’t talk about gun legislation after a mass shooting”.
We lean hard on the idea that developing understanding about bad behavior is the same as condoning it. That understanding bad behavior is somehow an insult to the victim. That ‘prioritizing the victims’ must mean defining the perpetrator as a pure and uncomplicated embodiment of evil action.
I understand that it feels good to stop the narrative and understanding at “evil person did an evil.” It’s simple, the emotions are simple, and the object of hatred is clearly defined. Invoking factors beyond the individual free will to choose evil gets complicated very quickly, and can lead to less emotionally cathartic conclusions.
All that is to say, “hurt people hurt people” is in fact a complex and compassionate take on violence. It should be the foundational mantra of social and political policy. It allows for full accountability from perpetrators of violence, while also allowing us to address systemic factors that inspire violence.
Did he mis-understand the moment and speak when his audience was not receptive? Probably. Was he wrong, or anti-semetic for saying it? No.
The frolic den? Sounds lovely.
Thank you. Your post says a lot of stuff i was thinking and didn’t write.
Then how come we never saw this kind of rhetoric after, say, the Pulse Nightclub shooting, despite the shooter’s motivation being nearly identical?
Actually, I can think of one mass shooting with a group that pushed very similar rhetoric. Incels really wanted us to know that hurt people hurt people in the aftermath of the Isla Vista shooting, and that Elliot Rogers was a hurt person.
Also my friend, the rabbinical student and his Jewish refugee wife. And their Jewish neighbors. I am really tired of people equating opposition to Israel’s Palestine policies with anti-Semitism.
Username checks out.
I strongly agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I think prioritizing the victims and what they’re feeling and what they need in the moment is really important. In fact it’s something of a professional ethos for me. It’s a different field - domestic violence and sexual assault - but the ethos of my work is “survivor-centered.” Not perpetrator centered, not even venting our spleens about the evil of the perpetrator. If the victim needs to talk about the perpetrator that’s one thing, but we don’t get to define their experience for them. When someone is a victim of an assault, we definitely don’t say anything like “hurt people hurt people.” Nor do we say, “Your perpetrator is evil and horrible.” Because it’s not up to us to make that determination and it’s not particularly helpful to take attention away from the victim by focusing on the perpetrator.
So I think we’ve got a real conflict between what the public needs (education) and what the victims need (validation and autonomy.) It’s not that either of us are wrong. It’s how do you thread that needle between competing needs? Well in my agency we have an entire community outreach program that does partnership building and Prevention Education. Our Prevention Education is quite a different approach than what would work for a person in crisis, even though it’s foundationally about the same sort of thing. When people are in crisis often the thing they most need is empowerment. They need to not feel helpless. Or they need whatever else they decide they need, and the whole point is that they get to decide what they need.
And one of the biggest, most important parts of the whole deal is that we don’t get to write the story for them.
And I think that matters here. It may not be the only consideration but I don’t think it should be discounted.