Texas Massacre and 214 other mass shootings in 2022

Manu wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Manu wrote:

ZealotX wrote: Powerlessness seeks power. But without balance... then the power seeker becomes the bully... becomes the monster.

https://lindagraham-mft.net/triangle-victim-rescuer-persecutor-get/

In your view, how do you see this fitting?

Your response made me think of the Drama Triangle (aka as Victim Triangle).

As long as people are playing into group identity, and these groups happen to be centered in the Victim Triangle, there adherents will always be shifting between victim and victimizer. As you said, Powerlessness seeks power.

You can see this in factions of modern feminist, BLM, LGTB activists, Christian groups who claim society is "under attack" by some group, etc. Same goes for Incels. If they feel they are being cheated by the system (victim hood) they will seek to retaliate to feel power over their supposed oppressors.

We need to stop framing our inner stories as a struggle between victim and bully, and instead realize most (but not all) of us are simply flawed but well-meaning human beings. I bet if school shooters were able to actually relate to other classmates as "damaged" and "flawed" and as "lonely" as they feel, they would be more likely to connect to them on the human level, rather than seeing them as part of a society they don't fit in.

This comes from the link you posted.

"[Karpman and other clinicians point out that “victim, rescuer, and persecutor” refer to roles people unconsciously play, or try to manipulate other people to play, not the actual circumstances in someone’s life. There can be real victims of crime or racism or abuse, etc.] The three roles of the drama triangle are archetypal and easily recognizable in their extreme versions."

Does this change your view at all?

When it says there can be "real" victims, does that not indicate that this triangle refers to cases in which there is alleged misconduct or abuse but it isn't real. Do you realize this? And if so, are you saying that the experience of the groups you mentioned fall into the category of "not real" (feminist, BLM, LGTB activists, Christian groups, etc.)?

This question is not intended to cast blame but rather to seek an understanding of why and how the experiences of certain groups often seems to be mitigated by such explanations. And how the whole/sum of experiences of a group can be cast and categorized as such when it seems only appropriate to do this with individual cases.

Manu wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Manu wrote:

ZealotX wrote: Powerlessness seeks power. But without balance... then the power seeker becomes the bully... becomes the monster.

https://lindagraham-mft.net/triangle-victim-rescuer-persecutor-get/

In your view, how do you see this fitting?

We need to stop framing our inner stories as a struggle between victim and bully, and instead realize most (but not all) of us are simply flawed but well-meaning human beings. I bet if school shooters were able to actually relate to other classmates as "damaged" and "flawed" and as "lonely" as they feel, they would be more likely to connect to them on the human level, rather than seeing them as part of a society they don't fit in.

I think one of the problems is that we have biases that make us believe that we are all well-meaning but flawed individuals. And that may have been true at one point in time. But as Streen said, I think you have to catch them BEFORE they are lost. Once a person goes down the (real) Darkside path they can become twisted. I'm not going to say what they found about this shooter but you can read it below.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/17/1111945402/uvalde-shooter-warning-signs-report

Clearly, this kid went to the dark side in a very real and tangible sort of way. At that point, he stopped being "Anakin" and started being "Vader". At that point, he wanted to be notorious and used the school to act upon that violent fantasy. Years ago... many years ago, when I was young... fights were with fists. But the culture has changed. And now disputes that used to be settled with fists, people settle now with guns. You step on the wrong person's shoes these days and you may have to watch your back. And part of the reason is that they have to watch theirs. People react to "market forces". And part of the reaction, I believe, is to the potential that they can and might get shot. And so they get a gun and they get scared enough to use it at the first sign of danger. I think this often employs the same psychology that law enforcement also uses in their fear of the unknown. That fear turns everyone into cowards. They shoot first and ask questions later, if you survive. But this is why the more guns you add to the situation the more explosive it becomes. It's not helping. It's just making it infinitely worse. And the only people who feel safe are those with guns but their safety is predicated on how quick they are to pull the trigger. There's an automatic escalation now that wasn't there before. So I don't think it's just isolated cases. I think a lot of these interactions are becoming more extreme. I can't speak to the bullying but it's possible that the degree of bullying was also to an extreme.

If that's the case, where is that opportunity for intervention? How can we protect students from bullying? How can we temper these interactions? And if that fails then how can we guns harder to get for twisted people? Because I think there are 3 issues to deal with. 1 is the social aspect and 2 is the mental health aspect in reaction and 3 is the access to deadly force that is often glorified as the ultimate means of "protection".

ZealotX wrote: Does this change your view at all?

No.

ZealotX wrote: When it says there can be "real" victims, does that not indicate that this triangle refers to cases in which there is alleged misconduct or abuse but it isn't real.

You've become stuck in a false dichotomy, what you imply is not what is being said at all, either by the author or by Karpman. The drama triangle as a model is not meant to negate real instances of abuse or victimhood, but to illustrate how people can become entangled in a manner to relating to each other that is toxic and warped. This can happen both to people who have suffered real abuse, and to people who have not, and transcends the "event" of abuse itself.

ZealotX wrote: ...are you saying that the experience of the groups you mentioned fall into the category of "not real" (feminist, BLM, LGTB activists, Christian groups, etc.)?

No.

ZealotX wrote: This question is not intended to cast blame but rather to seek an understanding of why and how the experiences of certain groups often seems to be mitigated by such explanations. And how the whole/sum of experiences of a group can be cast and categorized as such when it seems only appropriate to do this with individual cases.

I was very careful to use the word "factions" when I spoke of these groups, because it would be dishonest to state that all members of a group behave the same, or are motivated by the same things. As a matter of statistics, we are bound to find both productive and unproductive elements in any groups we interact with. The woman who calls herself a feminist and decides to not have children and pursue a male-dominated career, cannot be lumped together with the angry college student with her "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" t-shirt, demanding that all men should be prosecuted on rape charges and locked up 20 years simply for cat-calling a woman.

The same goes for any other group, including BLM. It is more than evident that African Americans had more than their fair share of abuse throughout American history, and that the echoes of racist policies still impact their opportunities to thrive today. Still, I believe it is evident that great leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr., or Nelson Mandela, were able to cast away their permanent "victim" status, and instead take an active hand in forging their destinies, not through vengence, but through escaping the triangle. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all used this triangle to their advantage, pitting group against group, dividing instead of unitying.

Manu wrote:
I was very careful to use the word "factions" when I spoke of these groups, because it would be dishonest to state that all members of a group behave the same, or are motivated by the same things. As a matter of statistics, we are bound to find both productive and unproductive elements in any groups we interact with. The woman who calls herself a feminist and decides to not have children and pursue a male-dominated career, cannot be lumped together with the angry college student with her "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" t-shirt, demanding that all men should be prosecuted on rape charges and locked up 20 years simply for cat-calling a woman.

The same goes for any other group, including BLM. It is more than evident that African Americans had more than their fair share of abuse throughout American history, and that the echoes of racist policies still impact their opportunities to thrive today. Still, I believe it is evident that great leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr., or Nelson Mandela, were able to cast away their permanent "victim" status, and instead take an active hand in forging their destinies, not through vengence, but through escaping the triangle. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all used this triangle to their advantage, pitting group against group, dividing instead of unitying.

You stated that you used the word "factions" as a means of qualifying a limited scope. However, this feels tacked on to what you previously said and I was a little thrown off by your use of "As long as people are playing into group identity, and these groups happen to be centered in the Victim Triangle" which, maybe it's not what you meant, but what I hear is you saying that the entire group identity is "centered" in the victim triangle which you seem to use outside of the context of social interaction. Not "fringe elements", not "extremists", and I don't know if "factions" is a good word choice either because that's then simply applying the same mindset to an unnamed subgroup of the group. A better choice of words would be, in my opinion, simply "individuals". You mentioned MLK. MLK wanted to be seen as an individual, not just as an African American.

And then if you had said individuals I would say well then, you're talking about individuals, not groups at all. And that's fine. And yes, I can stipulate to a certain degree of sensitivity to the use of the names of these groups because often this is how the entire group gets undermined and discredited. And what their attempting to do gets discredited and then all it takes is for someone to be called the label and then have all the hatred and animosity built up against the label unleashed on the person. So just as you are "careful" to qualify your statement to limit the scope, I'm also being careful, as one who has had to defend these groups on multiple occasions, against sexists, racists, and homophobes. I'm not identifying you as such a person. I'm hoping to steer you clear of any misperception.

To illustrate what I mean, you can say "there are African Americans who have a mentality in the victim triangle". Sort of. Because we then have to talk about conversations you've actually had/having and how they conform to this model of social interaction. But we can ASSUME that people of all races do this pretty much equally. Right? I wouldn't be able to agrue against this because I do not know every African American and it would be safe to assume there are many who fit into that description (just like everyone else). Right? But to go further and say they are members of the NAACP or the Urban League... or HBCUs... or ___insert black organization here____ that would be weird, right? I mean to say X organization has factions (not individuals) and there's a faction that represents this mindset... no one is using HBCUs or any other organization because these other organizations don't have a negative reputation; they don't have tons of opposition trying to discredit them. So I don't think it's a false dichotomy. I feel like you are labeling groups instead of individuals. And picking out "the crazies" of a group to say something about the group... how is THAT not playing identity politics with that group? This is the same thing I personally see some black people *wrongly* doing to white people in general and vice versa and *that* is what needs work. Every group has crazies in it. We can save a lot of time and stipulate to that fact. Now what?

Manu wrote:
You've become stuck in a false dichotomy, what you imply is not what is being said at all, either by the author or by Karpman. The drama triangle as a model is not meant to negate real instances of abuse or victimhood, but to illustrate how people can become entangled in a manner to relating to each other that is toxic and warped. This can happen both to people who have suffered real abuse, and to people who have not, and transcends the "event" of abuse itself.

Furthermore, the example of the triangle that's given on your link is a mother, father, and child; not the victims of real crimes, real oppression, etc. It's just talking about how people can switch in and out of these roles in a conflict. In other words, 2 people are having a social interaction where one person plays the victim, another the persecutor, and they flip back and forth. You're attempting to apply it, seemingly, outside of its original theoretical context; being dysfunctional social interactions. (See. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle)

https://leadershiptribe.com/blog/the-drama-triangle-explained
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Karpman_Drama_Triangle
https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/character-arcs-in-the-karpman-drama-triangle/

Again, these are people "casting" themselves into different roles in a conversation by virtue of psychology, not people who actually are these roles by practical experience. But if we treat REAL victims like they're fake victims it will only dismiss and minimize their experience and our ability to connect and relate with them. It is my belief... that there are well-meaning members of our society who are being taught not to empathize with others, but to blame others for their situations, taking things like this out of context. There are many people who go around their own societal group with pseudoscientific justification to support different mentalities within that group and it all sounds so good because that group wants to and is primed and prone to believe them. Again... well-meaning people who must be gotten to before they are lost.

ZealotX wrote: Furthermore, the example of the triangle that's given on your link is a mother, father, and child; not the victims of real crimes, real oppression, etc. It's just talking about how people can switch in and out of these roles in a conflict. In other words, 2 people are having a social interaction where one person plays the victim, another the persecutor, and they flip back and forth. You're attempting to apply it, seemingly, outside of its original theoretical context; being dysfunctional social interactions. (See. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle).

It is entirely possible I am misapplying the model, I probably wouldn't be able to tell, I am neither a sociologist nor a clinical psychologist.

The model itself, however, did strike me as very relevant however, in explaining how people with more or less common experiences, can have attitudes and adopt postures that are extremely different from one another, and seemed relevant to the conversation at the time (when discussing loners self-identifying into the "Incel" group).

I get the feeling we are both probably saying the same thing, only in different ways, and we've become stuck on semantics. I do wholeheartedly agree with you that a "group" should not be conflated with any one individual.

Yes, here's where we can kind of get back on the same page. Without relying on the model, I think it is fair to say that people can fall into certain roles as there are already certain archetypes that already exist. I am an Assertive Logician (INTP-A). So of course, that is going to play a role in how I think and communicate and I can have a more relaxed intellectual conversation with another intellectual. If the person is not an intellectual then I feel more guarded because who knows how words will be interpreted, twisted, etc.

So we all have different ways of approaching a situation based on who we are. These experiences can become echoes in a chamber. Common experiences, yes. But also common experiences finding others in common to share those experiences with. And so yes, within Black America you will find far more stories of misconduct mainly with the police but sometimes even prosecutors and judges. If you don't know these stories or have one of your own it may be harder to relate. It may not even feel as real as your reality because we all experience reality through the use of our own senses.

With incels... most of their experience is formed by the lack of real experiences. They feel victimized by women because they haven't had real experiences with women. On one hand, this is because they don't know how to communicate with women. They just think that because they are males that they are entitled to having females. Instead of understanding women (which can only happen through communication) they seek to understand each other, only. There are African Americans who, because of their limited experiences with Europeans, perpetuate the myth in their minds that they're all the same. There are Europeans who do the same to them. It's a vicious cycle.

If incels never try talking to women in a very real and honest way, without the BS stereotypes, cooked up by other incels to make them feel better about being celibate, they will never know they are wrong. Racists will never know they are wrong. African Americans will never know they are wrong and they'll use the racists as proof and the racists will do the same right back; picking out the few in order to represent the many. It's just wrong, not even from a moral standpoint, but from a scientific standpoint. Not thinking it's real is just as much a sin to those who have that real experience as having views resulting from that real experience can seem sinful to those who don't have that experience and therefore can only agree in theory.

But anyone can have behavior that can be "triggered" by past experiences or traumas. What we have to be careful of doing, is lumping everyone into the same boat. There are different diseases and different cures. Everyone can self-medicate the same way but for different reasons. Right now I have some dental issue that's making my whole jaw hurt. The source of the pain is real. What actions I need to take will depend on where the pain is coming from and I have to go to the right kind of doctor.

With shooters, if you can get to them in time, good. But the pain and trauma of being socially ostracized... is a real pain. Real trauma. That pain is emotional and psychological. Children terrorize each other with words and we don't take it seriously enough because "they are kids". So then these kids are like "well I'm a kid too but look at the damage that I can do." They're giving that emotional damage back in emotional and psychological damage. The truth is that no one's child should be shooting other kids and no one's child should be bullying other kids. Melania was right to use her platform as the first lady to try and call attention to it. Unfortunately, it couldn't be taken seriously thanks to her husband being a big bully himself.

The interesting thing is that when we talk about shooters I think we, like society, have a tendency to focus on them. But as Jedi?... I think we should focus more on what created them; what in their path caused them to start drifting away to a darker place? I think when one parent fails to keep their child from shooting other kids, other parents have already failed to keep their children from bullying. And then we as a society only hear the decibels of fear and anger just as our bodies are programmed to feel pain or pleasure. So we hear a mass shooting. But the individual being bullied, we don't hear that. And we should. And so as much as I think it's the shooter's fault, I think society's hands continue to get blood on them because these shooters are being created, in part, by our children and therefore us. So the best thing I can do? Make sure my kids are not bullying other kids. And try to get them, if they can, to be that kid that shows empathy. Because maybe all they needed was for one kid to be on their side.

You also brought up another point before, and I think it is relevant: the USA needs better gun control.

How did they get better gun controll in the old west ?