A really hot take from a participant of my self-help group (about shooters)

[noname223]

The topic was bullying. And I am sort of friends with the person who said it. I led the group and did not want to make a huge fuss about this statement. Like we all have to condemn it now. I think a self-help group should be open to stigmatized and unpopular postions. I want that this group is open and less judgemental. I moved on to a different topic because otherwise we would have shitted on this one person for his position and I did not want that. Because this is what society demands exactly that when such positions are held. I certainly disagree with this opinion and I think it is a pretty stupid one. But I don't think there is much damage done if someone shares something like that. However, I pointed one example out why this is too much black-white thinking. The woman I once had a crush for (the unempathetic psychology student) wanted to make a fuss about it. But I steered the conversations to a different aspect.

So now after this long introduction you might be curious what he said. He said if he hears about a shooting at a school there is only one person he has empathy for. And it implied he only has empathy for the shooter. Someone asked if this is what he meant. And he agreed.

I said this is too easy. It is also the case that victims of bullying are also at least sometimes bullies. And vice versa. Sometimes the bullies were victims. I opened up how I was bullied and that I think I also was sometimes opportunistic in my actions. We could have also started a discussion why this position is dogshit. But I did not want to shit on one person this much.

Here are in my opinion some very valid points against it. In most shootings the victims are random. Not the actual bullies die. In fact also bullied people can die. (Often also minorities) I don't buy that the shooters are in most cases are poor victims. Not seldomly extreme political beliefs play a role. And non white people are targeted. Or certain minorities. The bullying won't be healed by shooting innocent people. It is pretty selfish to do something like that. And quite sick. Some shooters want fame. There are other ways to cope with bullying. Especially, in societies where you can start therapy for free. It is pretty insane to think justice is served by such an act. Only way way more injustice is created by such an action. And I think getting other people PTSD, getting them disabled who were not involved in any bullying is a really evil action. Now we can start a debate what if the actual bullies get shot. I still think vigilante justice is really dangerous. And it is still an insane take. A different question for this would be: should there be the death sentence for bullying (often for minors) and the judge is one single individual who is also a minor. I can understand vigilante justice to a certain degree under some circumstances but not in this one.

I don't know this position is really crazy. The guy who said is also really smart. But I think this was not thought through. I think it still was not necessary that we all need to condemn this statement now. I think he did not convinc any of us with this. And there was no significant damage done. Except if he starts a shooting one day. But I doubt that.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Does he support terrorism too? Surely- it's along the same lines- you wronged me so, now I'll take revenge. Would he mind if it was his family and friends killed in a bombing because of what they represent? Would he still sympathise with the terrorist? How different is that to shooting randomly at school children?

I definitely think we should know about and talk about these things. To try to ascertain what turns a person extremist and to act so violently in the first place. Bullying and exclusion should be acted against but then- how do you eradicate them entirely?

How reasonable are these people even being? We have the right to be respected and not bullied but we can't expect people to want to be our friends or romantic partners. You can't exactly force everyone to get along and, killing them because they are mean is extreme.

What does it even achieve? If they are caught in the action, they'll either be shot themselves or, jailed for life. I doubt it will do much to stop bullying worldwide. I wonder if children even think that- better stop picking on them incase they bring an automatic weapon to school! Maybe some do think that now. The world's gone crazy.

I'm not a particularly violent person but it boils my blood when random people attack others. I absolutely would hope I'd fight to kill if I came up against one. Especially one targetting children- even if they were a child themself. If they are truly the victim of bullying- they should have enough empathy not to then bully and terrorise others. Like you say- it isn't targetted- it's a random bloodbath because they're frustrated and angry. Different if it's a one on one fight. Then, I do actually agree with sticking up for yourself.

 

[Pluto]

 

[nobodycaresaboutme]

If the person has negative impacts on your self-help group already, you can ban him right now. This looks like a really big red flag. These groups can be broken by even single person. It might be a good idea to hear how other members felt about it.

I know organizing self-help groups is very demanding but makes positive difference in the society. Please keep going! Sending a hug

 

[noname223]

Does he support terrorism too? Surely- it's along the same lines- you wronged me so, now I'll take revenge. Would he mind if it was his family and friends killed in a bombing because of what they represent? Would he still sympathise with the terrorist? How different is that to shooting randomly at school children?

I definitely think we should know about and talk about these things. To try to ascertain what turns a person extremist and to act so violently in the first place. Bullying and exclusion should be acted against but then- how do you eradicate them entirely?

How reasonable are these people even being? We have the right to be respected and not bullied but we can't expect people to want to be our friends or romantic partners. You can't exactly force everyone to get along and, killing them because they are mean is extreme.

What does it even achieve? If they are caught in the action, they'll either be shot themselves or, jailed for life. I doubt it will do much to stop bullying worldwide. I wonder if children even think that- better stop picking on them incase they bring an automatic weapon to school! Maybe some do think that now. The world's gone crazy.

I'm not a particularly violent person but it boils my blood when random people attack others. I absolutely would hope I'd fight to kill if I came up against one. Especially one targetting children- even if they were a child themself. If they are truly the victim of bullying- they should have enough empathy not to then bully and terrorise others. Like you say- it isn't targetted- it's a random bloodbath because they're frustrated and angry. Different if it's a one on one fight. Then, I do actually agree with sticking up for yourself.

I am pretty sure he does not support terrorism. It is interesting that a well educated and civil person can come to the conclusion that one should mainly feel empathy for the shooter. Maybe it is not a conclusion by reason rather than emotions. I am pretty sure he would have become defense if we started a debate about it. And nothing would have been achieved. My former crush Was pretty confrontational and displayed her judgement pretty clearly.

I thought what if I told them one day that I am part of a forum called Sanctioned Suicide. I won't Do that. But the Main position would be to shit on me. In the end this would not change my stance on suicide and suicide forums in any way. For me my position is deeply personal and shaped by my biography.

I think there could have been a debate about his position. I asked myself whether I should have handled it differently. In the end though I think we would not have achieved anything by starting a debate on it.

 

[patheticparasite]

He said if he hears about a shooting at a school there is only one person he has empathy for. And it implied he only has empathy for the shooter.

I think this is normal to an extent. We usually don't know much about the victims of these atrocities, they're faceless to us. But the perpetrators are discussed in-depth and anyone with a least bit of humanity left may feel empathy towards them.

What really grinds my gears is that this also means the shooters do it for the attention.

I thought what if I told them one day that I am part of a forum called Sanctioned Suicide. I won't Do that. But the Main position would be to shit on me.

You sure that's what's gonna happen? Doesn't sound very supportive to me, rather judgemental actually.

 

[noname223]

I think this is normal to an extent. We usually don't know much about the victims of these atrocities, they're faceless to us. But the perpetrators are discussed in-depth and anyone with a least bit of humanity left may feel empathy towards them.

What really grinds my gears is that this also means the shooters do it for the attention.


You sure that's what's gonna happen? Doesn't sound very supportive to me, rather judgemental actually.

How does this imply that the shooters do it for attention?

I don't think it would Play out like that.
But maybe my former crush would act like that because she is rather unempathetic. The woman who also confronted that guy who showed empathy for shooters. Maybe a bad trait for someone who wants to become therapist.... lol

With this comparison I rather wanted to demonstrate that shitting on someone for a socially inadequate position in a self-help group might be detrimental.

 

[derpyderpins]

The topic was bullying. And I am sort of friends with the person who said it. I led the group and did not want to make a huge fuss about this statement. Like we all have to condemn it now. I think a self-help group should be open to stigmatized and unpopular postions. I want that this group is open and less judgemental. I moved on to a different topic because otherwise we would have shitted on this one person for his position and I did not want that. Because this is what society demands exactly that when such positions are held. I certainly disagree with this opinion and I think it is a pretty stupid one. But I don't think there is much damage done if someone shares something like that. However, I pointed one example out why this is too much black-white thinking. The woman I once had a crush for (the unempathetic psychology student) wanted to make a fuss about it. But I steered the conversations to a different aspect.

So now after this long introduction you might be curious what he said. He said if he hears about a shooting at a school there is only one person he has empathy for. And it implied he only has empathy for the shooter. Someone asked if this is what he meant. And he agreed.

I said this is too easy. It is also the case that victims of bullying are also at least sometimes bullies. And vice versa. Sometimes the bullies were victims. I opened up how I was bullied and that I think I also was sometimes opportunistic in my actions. We could have also started a discussion why this position is dogshit. But I did not want to shit on one person this much.

Here are in my opinion some very valid points against it. In most shootings the victims are random. Not the actual bullies die. In fact also bullied people can die. (Often also minorities) I don't buy that the shooters are in most cases are poor victims. Not seldomly extreme political beliefs play a role. And non white people are targeted. Or certain minorities. The bullying won't be healed by shooting innocent people. It is pretty selfish to do something like that. And quite sick. Some shooters want fame. There are other ways to cope with bullying. Especially, in societies where you can start therapy for free. It is pretty insane to think justice is served by such an act. Only way way more injustice is created by such an action. And I think getting other people PTSD, getting them disabled who were not involved in any bullying is a really evil action. Now we can start a debate what if the actual bullies get shot. I still think vigilante justice is really dangerous. And it is still an insane take. A different question for this would be: should there be the death sentence for bullying (often for minors) and the judge is one single individual who is also a minor. I can understand vigilante justice to a certain degree under some circumstances but not in this one.

I don't know this position is really crazy. The guy who said is also really smart. But I think this was not thought through. I think it still was not necessary that we all need to condemn this statement now. I think he did not convinc any of us with this. And there was no significant damage done. Except if he starts a shooting one day. But I doubt that.

Well there's a difference between feeling for the assailant and condoning the acts.

It's a horrific thing, and I hate it. I'm particularly sensitive to children being hurt: no matter how many times it happens I don't get numb to it and my heart can break, as they're completely innocent.

It can't be justified. It accomplishes nothing.

At the same time, just like there is a survival instinct that is insanely difficult to overcome to commit suicide, committing such an act usually requires that instinct to be overcome and another barrier I am personally unaccustomed to about lashing out violently. I mean, I've had panic attacks with an anger component, and even broken things in my old apartment, but I've never actually had that impulse to physically hurt someone. I imagine, though, that it is not something you're conditioned to in a day.

So, I can be sad that someone was in such a bad place that they overcame both of those barriers. I can also try to understand and empathize, because that's the only real way to stop such outbursts entirely, is if you understand the root cause, which in my opinion requires learning about the emotions at play. I can be pissed at the world that is ugly and makes it so that a certain - however small - percentage of people reach that point and then cause harm to innocents.

I can remember times when I've felt extremely lonely, isolated, angry, etc., and how I thought ill of everyone. It's been a few months since I've talked about this subject, but when I say I used to be different and that I understand the NEET/Incel crowd to an extent, I mean it: I thought other people were "NPCs" and they were all contributing to things being bad. My big brain big IQ special self knew better. While I never would have hurt others, I can imagine someone much more aggressive and agitated following those thought patterns to a darker place. I'm so glad I'm not there anymore, but I also think it's important to try and understand so people who are teetering on the edge follow a better path.

Now, what really stands out about what your friend said isn't that he feels empathy for the shooter, but that he implicitly does not feel empathy for innocent victims. I wasn't there for the conversation, and I know there are translation issues here, but my hope is that he meant empathy in a very literal sense: "I've never been an innocent person with a bright future whose death would be tragic [or at least he doesn't perceive himself that way] therefore I can't really connect with them regardless of the moral implications."

Again, I wasn't there. Sounds like the rest of you interpreted it as him thinking the shootings are good, which - if that's what he meant - would be awful, but I think that is different than having empathy for the shooter. I don't know how much he got to explain, or how much being challenged made him say extreme things in frustration.

 

[noname223]

Well there's a difference between feeling for the assailant and condoning the acts.

It's a horrific thing, and I hate it. I'm particularly sensitive to children being hurt: no matter how many times it happens I don't get numb to it and my heart can break, as they're completely innocent.

It can't be justified. It accomplishes nothing.

At the same time, just like there is a survival instinct that is insanely difficult to overcome to commit suicide, committing such an act usually requires that instinct to be overcome and another barrier I am personally unaccustomed to about lashing out violently. I mean, I've had panic attacks with an anger component, and even broken things in my old apartment, but I've never actually had that impulse to physically hurt someone. I imagine, though, that it is not something you're conditioned to in a day.

So, I can be sad that someone was in such a bad place that they overcame both of those barriers. I can also try to understand and empathize, because that's the only real way to stop such outbursts entirely, is if you understand the root cause, which in my opinion requires learning about the emotions at play. I can be pissed at the world that is ugly and makes it so that a certain - however small - percentage of people reach that point and then cause harm to innocents.

I can remember times when I've felt extremely lonely, isolated, angry, etc., and how I thought ill of everyone. It's been a few months since I've talked about this subject, but when I say I used to be different and that I understand the NEET/Incel crowd to an extent, I mean it: I thought other people were "NPCs" and they were all contributing to things being bad. My big brain big IQ special self knew better. While I never would have hurt others, I can imagine someone much more aggressive and agitated following those thought patterns to a darker place. I'm so glad I'm not there anymore, but I also think it's important to try and understand so people who are teetering on the edge follow a better path.

Now, what really stands out about what your friend said isn't that he feels empathy for the shooter, but that he implicitly does not feel empathy for innocent victims. I wasn't there for the conversation, and I know there are translation issues here, but my hope is that he meant empathy in a very literal sense: "I've never been an innocent person with a bright future whose death would be tragic [or at least he doesn't perceive himself that way] therefore I can't really connect with them regardless of the moral implications."

Again, I wasn't there. Sounds like the rest of you interpreted it as him thinking the shootings are good, which - if that's what he meant - would be awful, but I think that is different than having empathy for the shooter. I don't know how much he got to explain, or how much being challenged made him say extreme things in frustration.

I think you understood him correctly, Mr. Lawyer Sir! I think the Interpretation is correct. And you are right it is insane that He implies he does not feel empathy for the innocent victims.

The irony in his statement is: so if you get bullied by some people it is a legitimate reaction to shoot some innocent random minors for revenge. You get a free pass and empathy for that. But if you bully innocent minors it morally okay to kill you for that. It feels like bullying is the worse Crime in this instance.

Then whole thing is not thought through. I don't think He is an evil person. But this statement is really crap. And if we had started a debate we All had to shit on him.

I am pretty sure he did not want to say that shootings are good.

You know self-help groups can have difficult members. Also in clinics you notice some people who experienced abuse choose the wrong path. There Was a Person that flexed with a story how He got intimate with a woman who Was Actually in a relationship with someone else. And he sort of felt proud of that. And it felt like the sole purpose to tell us that story Was to inform us that He got laid. Most of us probably felt disgusted by him but we could not communicate that. The person who told this Story (to your surprise) has no friends.

For some clarifications: He had no time to explain it. My former crush reacted shocked and confronted him how He could say something like that. The discussion would have blown up and it would have become very emotional. I said some points against it why I think this statement is not thought through as I elaborated earlier and then I moved on. It would have become a huge drama otherwise. Did I protect him because of mine sympathy for him? I don't know. In the past his excessive drug use bugged me more. He wanted to be friends with me and I declined that. He certainly has some traumata. I think a neutral debate about arguments would have been good. But the statement was so insane that we all had to condemn him for it. And I am not sure whether that's the right thing in a self-help group.

 

[derpyderpins]

I think you understood him correctly, Mr. Lawyer Sir! I think the Interpretation is correct. And you are right it is insane that He implies he does not feel empathy for the innocent victims.

The irony in his statement is: so if you get bullied by some people it is a legitimate reaction to shoot some innocent random minors for revenge. You get a free pass and empathy for that. But if you bully innocent minors it morally okay to kill you for that. It feels like bullying is the worse Crime in this instance.

Then whole thing is not thought through. I don't think He is an evil person. But this statement is really crap. And if we had started a debate we All had to shit on him.

I am pretty sure he did not want to say that shootings are good.

You know self-help groups can have difficult members. Also in clinics you notice some people who experienced abuse choose the wrong path. There Was a Person that flexed with a story how He got intimate with a woman who Was Actually in a relationship with someone else. And he sort of felt proud of that. And it felt like the sole purpose to tell us that story Was to inform us that He got laid. Most of us probably felt disgusted by him but we could not communicate that. The person who told this Story (to your surprise) has no friends.

For some clarifications: He had no time to explain it. My former crush reacted shocked and confronted him how He could say something like that. The discussion would have blown up and it would have become very emotional. I said some points against it why I think this statement is not thought through as I elaborated earlier and then I moved on. It would have become a huge drama otherwise. Did I protect him because of mine sympathy for him? I don't know. In the past his excessive drug use bugged me more. He wanted to be friends with me and I declined that. He certainly has some traumata. I think a neutral debate about arguments would have been good. But the statement was so insane that we all had to condemn him for it. And I am not sure whether that's the right thing in a self-help group.

I'm glad you moved on, then. I don't think you had to shit on him or condemn him. Debates and arguments aren't normally helpful if the goal was to have him change his mind, and the rest of you were settled in on the issue.

Moving on was fine, but I think it would have been helpful to give him the floor a bit. If someone has a troublesome, distorted belief, it's better to explore inward, usually. Find the exact point of divergence. This would be needed for a proper "debate," anyway, preferably informal and patient, where you should start by fully defining the stances of each side, so figuring out what exactly he thought and why he thought it would have been step one rather than telling him reasons it's wrong. Socratic information exchange rather than attempting to "win" any debate.

imo self-help and therapy are not places to "condemn" in most situations. Sure, if he said something suggesting he was about to commit a crime, then you take an extreme path, but otherwise . . . can you self-help if you don't address what's wrong with you in-depth? He probably knew it wouldn't get a good reaction to say what he said, and he said it anyway. His statement was - among other things - a statement that he feels he only relates to the outcast, even when they are awful and do awful things, like he can't belong with normal people, and the response he got probably reinforced that rather than helping him see how he is different than the shooter because he still has his humanity.

But, you are members of a self-help group, not mental health professionals leading a session, so it's unrealistic to expect perfect handling when situations pop up suddenly.

 

[noname223]

I'm glad you moved on, then. I don't think you had to shit on him or condemn him. Debates and arguments aren't normally helpful if the goal was to have him change his mind, and the rest of you were settled in on the issue.

Moving on was fine, but I think it would have been helpful to give him the floor a bit. If someone has a troublesome, distorted belief, it's better to explore inward, usually. Find the exact point of divergence. This would be needed for a proper "debate," anyway, preferably informal and patient, where you should start by fully defining the stances of each side, so figuring out what exactly he thought and why he thought it would have been step one rather than telling him reasons it's wrong. Socratic information exchange rather than attempting to "win" any debate.

imo self-help and therapy are not places to "condemn" in most situations. Sure, if he said something suggesting he was about to commit a crime, then you take an extreme path, but otherwise . . . can you self-help if you don't address what's wrong with you in-depth? He probably knew it wouldn't get a good reaction to say what he said, and he said it anyway. His statement was - among other things - a statement that he feels he only relates to the outcast, even when they are awful and do awful things, like he can't belong with normal people, and the response he got probably reinforced that rather than helping him see how he is different than the shooter because he still has his humanity.

But, you are members of a self-help group, not mental health professionals leading a session, so it's unrealistic to expect perfect handling when situations pop up suddenly.

The session was pretty advanced and there were only 20 minutes left. We would have wasted the rest of the time for this one controversial statement. In the end noone would have profited from it. He seemed to be pretty convinced of his belief and my former crush was about to start a drama. I had the feeling the blood was already boiling in them. Lol.
I like to analyze my role in these groups. And sometimes he is also the host of the meetings. There would not have been a lesson learned if we debated this topic for 20 minutes. (when it is a belief that comes from his own personal biography). I also thought whether the group would have actually liked to talk about this in-depth. We struggle to maintain our audience. And does this discussion really help them with their own mental health problems? We can have debates about such controversial mind sets. But is this the actual goal of a college mental health self-group?

 

[derpyderpins]

The session was pretty advanced and there were only 20 minutes left. We would have wasted the rest of the time for this one controversial statement. In the end noone would have profited from it. He seemed to be pretty convinced of his belief and my former crush was about to start a drama. I had the feeling the blood was already boiling in them. Lol.
I like to analyze my role in these groups. And sometimes he is also the host of the meetings. There would not have been a lesson learned if we debated this topic for 20 minutes. (when it is a belief that comes from his own personal biography). I also thought whether the group would have actually liked to talk about this in-depth. We struggle to maintain our audience. And does this discussion really help them with their own mental health problems? We can have debates about such controversial mind sets. But is this the actual goal of a college mental health self-group?

Well, since the group leads itself, I think the group can define its own goal.

The type of discussion matters, imo. If the "discussion" is a debate of the merits and motivations of school shooters and the importance of condemning them, I'm guessing that 'no,' it probably wouldn't help that person or anyone else with their mental health problems.

If the discussion is about "why does this person have this reaction that we see as radical?" I think it can help him and possibly everyone else, although there's no guarantee it will.

To give a personal example. A big struggle that I have is guilt. Just, generally, and also in many specific ways. I feel guilty that I didn't do more in life, I feel guilty that I have executive disfunction and productivity issues, I feel guilty that even though I don't think I do enough that I have the gall to still want more. I feel guilty for not being more grateful.

When I discuss this, I get plenty of logical points as to why I should not feel guilty: I'm doing better than most; even though it was never acknowledged growing up I have neurodivergence, so things are even harder for me; there's nothing wrong with wanting things so long as it doesn't consume you; I'm objectively harder on myself than I would be on others - breaking one of my own recovery guidelines!

None of that makes the guilt go away, though, or even alleviates it, even though it is objectively right. If anything, it amplifies the feeling in the moment, I guess because our brains are masochistic assholes.

What has been helping is continually asking "why" and going deeper. (Hasn't fixed it, and it doesn't always work, but it's helped some). I go back to my childhood, think of my personality types, particularly enneagram tripart (showing weaknesses) and PAS (showing how I adopted, contorted myself, as a survival tactic):

"why feel guilty?" I'm not productive. "Why feel guilty for that?" Well, I'm supposed to be productive. "Why?" Well . . . I guess it's a rule of society, and we all have to play our part. "Are you contributing back more than you take?" I mean, sure if you run the numbers, but - "then why guilt? Do you need to give society more than your 'share' or whatever?" Well, no. . . so I guess I feel guilty for a different reason. "Why?" Well, people will get upset with me. "But that shouldn't make you feel guilty, just apprehensive of the negative interaction."

Spoiler: Got way too long, but I got honest with myself so maybe it will be useful for someone else.

Fair. . . I guess it's still that I'm not living up to expectations. "Whose?" Well, my own. "Why are your expectations so high for yourself compared to others?" I should be doing better. I got a lot of head-starts in life. "How much better would be good enough?" Well, I don't know exactly. "Consider a similarly situated person who got a similar head-start. Would you say they're doing enough?" Probably. "Then why is it different for you? Why did those expectations get set so high?" I guess they always have been, at least since I transferred to public school and did the best in my class. "You were setting your own expectations as a 8-10 year old?" Well, not to the point I'd feel guilty naturally. Of course coming up short would be dissapointing but I don't think children naturally punish themselves so much for imperfection. "Then who?" My mom, I guess. I remember the disappointment for coming up short, for messing up, for not fitting in, and the big effect it had on me. "Was it reasonable? Would you have the same expectations of a kid, even a bright one?" No. Kids should mess up. "Then why still abide by them?" I - uh... I mean she was still in my life all through school, I was dependent on her and had to see her, there was still concern about messing up. My enneagram tritype 4-5-9, the 9 is the peacemaker, I don't want people to be mad at me. I hate it. I guess it makes sense with my PAS results, too: ifa*, as in, in adolescence I adjusted myself from "Role-Uniform" (non-conforming) to "Role-Adaptive" (conforming. For a neurodivergent, it means masking). I'd change to people-please to avoid conflict. "You aren't dependent on your mom now in any sense. So why still these standards?" I . . . have no real, good answer. And in that, I've identified that the guilt is distorted. (I'm sure another day I'll come up with another smart-ass answer. The brain loves to cling to the old script. It's hard to overwrite.)

Obviously, you couldn't go through something like this in 20 minutes. But it starts somewhere. I've been actively struggling with mental health issues for, oh, we're coming up on year 22.

It's quite possible that if you tried to have this type of talk with him, he'd get defensive or lash out and it wouldn't help at all. That's always a risk. But, you can imagine some possible possitives:

"Hey, you really only have empathy for the shooter?"
"Yes."
"Why?"
"Because people are cruel. He was probably bullied. That's how it always goes."
(Putting aside 'violence isn't the answer') "but it seems like he shot people who weren't the bullies. Don't you feel empathy for them?"
"You know what? I don't. I don't feel empathy for them."
"That's surprising to me. Why do you think that is?"

Beyond this would be a lot of speculation, but I can imagine several avenues that could be very real and productive.

I also accept that I can be a naive idealist, and that things are never as clean and smooth as I'm presenting.

 

[noname223]

Well, since the group leads itself, I think the group can define its own goal.

The type of discussion matters, imo. If the "discussion" is a debate of the merits and motivations of school shooters and the importance of condemning them, I'm guessing that 'no,' it probably wouldn't help that person or anyone else with their mental health problems.

If the discussion is about "why does this person have this reaction that we see as radical?" I think it can help him and possibly everyone else, although there's no guarantee it will.

To give a personal example. A big struggle that I have is guilt. Just, generally, and also in many specific ways. I feel guilty that I didn't do more in life, I feel guilty that I have executive disfunction and productivity issues, I feel guilty that even though I don't think I do enough that I have the gall to still want more. I feel guilty for not being more grateful.

When I discuss this, I get plenty of logical points as to why I should not feel guilty: I'm doing better than most; even though it was never acknowledged growing up I have neurodivergence, so things are even harder for me; there's nothing wrong with wanting things so long as it doesn't consume you; I'm objectively harder on myself than I would be on others - breaking one of my own recovery guidelines!

None of that makes the guilt go away, though, or even alleviates it, even though it is objectively right. If anything, it amplifies the feeling in the moment, I guess because our brains are masochistic assholes.

What has been helping is continually asking "why" and going deeper. (Hasn't fixed it, and it doesn't always work, but it's helped some). I go back to my childhood, think of my personality types, particularly enneagram tripart (showing weaknesses) and PAS (showing how I adopted, contorted myself, as a survival tactic):

"why feel guilty?" I'm not productive. "Why feel guilty for that?" Well, I'm supposed to be productive. "Why?" Well . . . I guess it's a rule of society, and we all have to play our part. "Are you contributing back more than you take?" I mean, sure if you run the numbers, but - "then why guilt? Do you need to give society more than your 'share' or whatever?" Well, no. . . so I guess I feel guilty for a different reason. "Why?" Well, people will get upset with me. "But that shouldn't make you feel guilty, just apprehensive of the negative interaction."

Spoiler: Got way too long, but I got honest with myself so maybe it will be useful for someone else.

Fair. . . I guess it's still that I'm not living up to expectations. "Whose?" Well, my own. "Why are your expectations so high for yourself compared to others?" I should be doing better. I got a lot of head-starts in life. "How much better would be good enough?" Well, I don't know exactly. "Consider a similarly situated person who got a similar head-start. Would you say they're doing enough?" Probably. "Then why is it different for you? Why did those expectations get set so high?" I guess they always have been, at least since I transferred to public school and did the best in my class. "You were setting your own expectations as a 8-10 year old?" Well, not to the point I'd feel guilty naturally. Of course coming up short would be dissapointing but I don't think children naturally punish themselves so much for imperfection. "Then who?" My mom, I guess. I remember the disappointment for coming up short, for messing up, for not fitting in, and the big effect it had on me. "Was it reasonable? Would you have the same expectations of a kid, even a bright one?" No. Kids should mess up. "Then why still abide by them?" I - uh... I mean she was still in my life all through school, I was dependent on her and had to see her, there was still concern about messing up. My enneagram tritype 4-5-9, the 9 is the peacemaker, I don't want people to be mad at me. I hate it. I guess it makes sense with my PAS results, too: ifa*, as in, in adolescence I adjusted myself from "Role-Uniform" (non-conforming) to "Role-Adaptive" (conforming. For a neurodivergent, it means masking). I'd change to people-please to avoid conflict. "You aren't dependent on your mom now in any sense. So why still these standards?" I . . . have no real, good answer. And in that, I've identified that the guilt is distorted. (I'm sure another day I'll come up with another smart-ass answer. The brain loves to cling to the old script. It's hard to overwrite.)

Obviously, you couldn't go through something like this in 20 minutes. But it starts somewhere. I've been actively struggling with mental health issues for, oh, we're coming up on year 22.

It's quite possible that if you tried to have this type of talk with him, he'd get defensive or lash out and it wouldn't help at all. That's always a risk. But, you can imagine some possible possitives:

"Hey, you really only have empathy for the shooter?"
"Yes."
"Why?"
"Because people are cruel. He was probably bullied. That's how it always goes."
(Putting aside 'violence isn't the answer') "but it seems like he shot people who weren't the bullies. Don't you feel empathy for them?"
"You know what? I don't. I don't feel empathy for them."
"That's surprising to me. Why do you think that is?"

Beyond this would be a lot of speculation, but I can imagine several avenues that could be very real and productive.

I also accept that I can be a naive idealist, and that things are never as clean and smooth as I'm presenting.

The thing is the discussion was never about shooters actually. The main discussion was about bullying. Shooters were a complete side note and only brought up in one (his) sentence. It also would have derailed the discussion.

I think I also suffer from my own expectations. Or the one's my mom or bullies enforced on me. But I have different thoughts. Lately, I also think whether I am a burden to society. Germany lacks money and the health care system erodes. I explain myself over rationality though. Yes, it costs the state a lot to keep me surviving. But shouldn't the state rather save money from giving weapons to Israel instead? And we live in a World where the rich have way too much leverage only by inheriting a fortune or winning the genetic lottery. And what would be the alternative? Even if I killed myself a suicide costs a society over a million Euros on average. My parents might become disabled over it and won't be able to work any longer. It would even be a win-win situation if my country gave me more money. I had less mental health issues and would cost less. In the end I also doubt free will. And we are Pretty much a product of the way we were raised, our environment and our genes. I also torture myself way too much. But that's mostly a product of my neurodivergence and the abuse I experienced. It is way easier to analyze that than to actually treat you better.

I think you as a productive working member of society you give Way more back to society than you take. Especially, if we look at economical aspects. People like you have to fund people like me. And there are even cases who take way more money than me. People with seldom diseases whose medication cost millions or very severe nursing cases with 24/7 treatment. This is where the public funding goes to. But we All can end up With dementia one day. And the human catastrophe is probably even worse than the economical.

 

[derpyderpins]

The thing is the discussion was never about shooters actually. The main discussion was about bullying. Shooters were a complete side note and only brought up in one (his) sentence. It also would have derailed the discussion.

Totally fair. Probably for the best just to move on. I may have worded it sloppily but when I said a discussion would be preferred, I meant in a perfect world, which this - in my experience - is not.

I think I also suffer from my own expectations. Or the one's my mom or bullies enforced on me. But I have different thoughts. Lately, I also think whether I am a burden to society. Germany lacks money and the health care system erodes. I explain myself over rationality though. Yes, it costs the state a lot to keep me surviving. But shouldn't the state rather save money from giving weapons to Israel instead? And we live in a World where the rich have way too much leverage only by inheriting a fortune or winning the genetic lottery. And what would be the alternative? Even if I killed myself a suicide costs a society over a million Euros on average. My parents might become disabled over it and won't be able to work any longer. It would even be a win-win situation if my country gave me more money. I had less mental health issues and would cost less. In the end I also doubt free will. And we are Pretty much a product of the way we were raised, our environment and our genes. I also torture myself way too much. But that's mostly a product of my neurodivergence and the abuse I experienced. It is way easier to analyze that than to actually treat you better.

I think you as a productive working member of society you give Way more back to society than you take. Especially, if we look at economical aspects. People like you have to fund people like me. And there are even cases who take way more money than me. People with seldom diseases whose medication cost millions or very severe nursing cases with 24/7 treatment. This is where the public funding goes to. But we All can end up With dementia one day. And the human catastrophe is probably even worse than the economical.

I don't think you need to worry. We all have our own script. You could cut mine off way earlier and go a different route. If productive people give back way more, then shouldn't it cover some struggling people? And you have a point with weapons. I don't know how much Germany spends on that stuff off the top of my head but when you think about one rocket costing enough to support several for a lifetime it's like, eh, fuck it.

There are indeed cases worse than yours where people are just selfish, but I'm always more worried about my taxes paying for bombs than for that. The waste is so much greater it can't even be compared. I completely get where people are coming from when they get mad about welfare and such, from an economic philosophy perspective; and, sure, I love a good "taxation is theft" discussion. But, like, the bombs, the bureaucracy, the fraud is so monumental that I think you've got to prioritize. With how technology has progressed, we should have abundance by now, but it's slipped away.


[in the US, we lose up to half a trillion dollars a year to just. . . fraud - sauce below. Not, like, this spending choice was not great because of lobbying influece: literal fraud. Five hundred thousand briefcases holding a million dollars' worth of budget lost per year. In ten years, the five million million dollars. Five million people could get a million dollars each with that fraud money. Yeah, I just don't care that I'm helping some NEET take meds to dull the psychic pain and order Uber eats sometimes. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105833]