Cav's Place

Unless you’ve been in a coma since Friday, I really shouldn’t have to tell you what happened. There’s so much information about it everywhere that I wouldn’t even know what to link to first if I were so inclined. There’s always Wikipedia for a starting point, of course, but if you’re missing any details I’d strongly advise you to go to whatever source you deem most trustworthy and look for them there. Then again, if you haven’t bothered to do that already you probably shouldn’t bother reading this post either, so move along now…
If you read the above, are still here and not just because you plan to troll, I should also mention that I won’t be writing about the actual events, but comment on the lessons I believe should be learned from them and the fact that people obviously refuse to do so, in fact most often going exactly in the opposite direction. Seeing as you are also a person, you most likely won’t agree with me, but that never stopped me before, did it? It’s not like I’ll be saying anything I haven’t said before whenever such issues came up, though I don’t think I ever put all of these ideas together in a single post before.

I’ll start with how effective such actions are, seeing as people react to them so strongly. They may or may not gather public and even official support for the terrorist’s cause, but they at least make the existing support more visible. People react to fear after all, so they will tend to do things that are likely to reduce the perceived risks, such as giving in to the attacker’s demands so there will be no more attacks for the same reason in the future, even if this reaction will only be subconscious.
Yet that’s not necessarily how such attacks are most effective. They usually cause a significant amount of backlash as well, which largely counters the initial fear-based reaction on the issue at hand. Sometimes the backlash is even stronger, especially when the target of the attack was poorly chosen and generates a large amount of sympathy, potentially resulting in a net change that will actually go against the attacker’s wishes. However, any and all such attacks play right into the hands of those who are enemies of freedom and diversity in general, desiring more and more power for themselves. They’re experts at using such events to push forward new measures ostensibly meant to improve security, but which in fact reduce the rights and freedoms of innocents, and often even directly harm them, far more. These individuals always make the most of such chances, so you’ll see all of this happening now as well and this is the thing we’ll need to stand united against.

Secondly, it’s obvious that this form of multiculturalism doesn’t work within the current framework. Some people will simply refuse to accept others no matter what anyone says or does, which generates tensions. These tensions may ultimately lead to acts such as these, but in fact this is less significant than the constant stress and harassment, whether real or perceived, caused by this situation. It doesn’t help anyone and the sooner we move past it and start doing what needs to be done, the better. While some will still refuse even that, many people will find it much easier to work together if they won’t have to live together as well anymore.
What am I saying? The same thing I’ve been saying for many years: Simply being born within some lines on a map doesn’t mean anything, what defines you as potentially part of a group being your ideals and beliefs. As such, countries should be defined by laws and people should be free to relocate to the one that best suits them from that point of view, each country being allowed to very strictly enforce its laws upon its adult citizens. Some will be founded by people who promote tolerance and diversity and draw individuals with a similar mindset from many current nations and cultures, others will reject certain beliefs and behaviors and accept all except those who exhibit them, while yet others will be very strict, only accepting a very narrow set. As such, any person who freely chooses to move to or, upon reaching adulthood, stay in a country will know exactly what is expected of them and also that they won’t be bothered by people who are different from them in deeply troubling ways, whether that means people who would ask for tolerance or those who’d promote intolerance.
Ideally, the current countries would simply vanish and new ones would be created according to these rules, but that’s a project for the distant future, so for now we could start creating largely autonomous regions within existing countries, particularly in the larger ones, for each significant group known to have problems with another, while also developing the means to allow people to continue working together despite no longer living together. And there’s also the issue of children to consider, as they shouldn’t be treated the same as adults and a certain part of their education will also have to be unified, to ensure that all know their options upon reaching adulthood. But this is a long and complicated discussion that is a key part of my “ideal world” plans, so there is another time and place for it.

The next issue is less major than the first two, but also important and in fact very much connected to the first one listed. I’m talking about gun control, which is once again brought into focus whenever something like this happens. Those who have every interest to keep all control and those who are too frightened to think straight about this issue use such events to push for tighter regulations, limiting the right to own weapons more and more and potentially even pushing for a complete ban on firearms for civilians.
The bad guys will always find a way to cause damage, period. They’re likely to find ways to obtain weapons illegally if it can’t be done legally, or if not they’ll find a way to make bombs, which will cause even more death and destruction than a gun could. For example, if Breivik wouldn’t have been able to find weapons I’m quite sure he eventually would have put even more effort into his bombs, making sure they’d all detonate instead of just one and placing them in several places instead of leaving a large part of his explosives behind when he went on the shooting spree. And don’t tell me that those substances need to be more tightly controlled as well, because that’s yet another way of making life harder for innocents.
The thing is that guns allow people to defend themselves. When I hear of such a shooting spree, I’m not wondering how did that one person get a gun, but instead why didn’t anyone else nearby have one as well. Sure, create some checks to keep the truly unbalanced individuals from legally obtaining weapons, but allow the rest the chance to defend themselves and those around them. After all, even if a few would be unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire, there would still be far fewer victims, as the gunman would be quickly shot down or at least forced to retreat and no longer in a position to continue the rampage.

Next is the greater issue of free speech and openness, which also connects with what I said above about such events playing right into the hands of those who want to reduce freedom. Not even counting the fact that some proceedings have been hidden, what’s truly important to note is that people fear speech and try to stifle that which bothers them. Whether we’re talking about a government, whether openly authoritarian or not, trying to silence criticism and calls for reform or about a society as a whole trying to stop hate speech, it’s the same thing. When some move from words to actions, it’s another matter, but all speech should be free, regardless of what’s being said, at least until what I said above about new countries or regions will become reality.
This is particularly relevant when it comes to such events because we see what happens when certain groups or individuals are driven underground because their opinions aren’t acceptable in the open. They get angrier and more determined while the rest of society tends to forget about them, or at least assume that they’re no longer a real threat, and then when they do strike it’s completely unexpected and the effects are even worse. If, on the other hand, a constant dialogue between all sides would be not only accepted but strongly encouraged, no matter how extreme some views would be, things would be very different. A person is less likely to kill you while you’re communicating and offering them a platform to present their side of the story.
I say again: As long as countries remain as they are today, all speech should be free, rejecting one view, no matter how disturbing, being no different from rejecting another. Once someone moves from speech to action, things change, but words, even the worst extremists’ words, need not be feared. What needs to be feared is silence, because most harmful plans are carried out after those behind them, whether terrorists or governments, stop openly stating their views and intentions and start hiding. Besides, who knows, such dialogue may even create some solutions, even if some that people aren’t currently willing to consider.

Last but definitely not least, we’ve been reminded that such attacks can never be fully prevented, that risks can never be completely eliminated. And they shouldn’t be. I recall an article I read some years ago that said that in Nature the alert level is always at least orange and that if our bodies would try to eliminate risks as much as our society does we’d stop breathing and die. Instead, our bodies accept everything that comes their way, but they have senses to provide some warning of imminent danger, an immune system to repel threats that made their way inside, a capacity for healing to fix the damage caused and even the ability to still function to some extent even with significant damage. So our society should work in a pretty similar manner when it comes to terrorist attacks, preventing only what it can without risking to negatively affect the lives of innocents, efficiently fighting against active and proven threats once they reveal themselves, quickly fixing any damage caused and being set up so it can continue to function despite said damage.
This is yet another thing that ties in to how such attacks play into the hands of those who desire more control, as we keep seeing for the past decade. There is a point past which any added security becomes too restrictive or simply too troublesome to be justified for all and we’re already way past that point when it comes to terrorism in Europe and North America. Anything beyond that point should be optional, only for those who specifically state that they’re willing to give up rights and freedoms for some added security. Otherwise, people should be given the chance to properly defend themselves and should learn that some risks can’t be eliminated.
Besides, the risk of being injured or killed in a terrorist attack is already extremely small in the developed countries, putting even more resources into reducing it further no longer being justified even if we ignore the negative effects this has on individual rights and freedoms. Far, far more people are injured or killed in accidents, whether on the street, at work or at home, and many more others suffer or die as a result of diseases that could be prevented or cured. Just think of all the suffering, whether physical or mental, caused by the by-products of our very society, whether we’re talking about pollution or stress…

As I said in the title, these are things we have once again been reminded of, but we’ll never learn. Or maybe someday we will, but I personally don’t have much hope for the current version of human. If we were going to see how things truly stand and approach matters rationally, we wouldn’t be here in the first place.