by jlaw172364 » Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:59 pm
@IanEye
I skimmed that article. One possible cause of the kid's problems may be that nobody recognizes the use of electronic media as a type of addiction. And what kinds of games is young Michael playing? Might they be the games where the gamer's avatar gets a license to kill virtual enemies with no consequences? Most games targeted to young males involve violence on an epic scale.
Some research has allegedly shown that these games light up the same areas of the brain as cocaine. So the kid, already cursed with a high IQ, and all the trouble that brings, may also be coping with the virtual equivalent of bouts of cocaine withdrawal.
Think I'm being a little extreme?
I reflect back on my childhood experiences with videogames. How I begged my parents for a Nintendo console, and then once I got it, I played it nonstop for hours at a time. How angry I would get when they would attempt to curtail my use. How socializing with friends revolved around various video game consoles . . . until we discovered chemical narcotics. And then we combined the two. Video-games and drugs. Not exactly a winning combination.
So, what does the mother do when her son acts out. She immediately drags him to the "authorities," who have every incentive to drag treatment out as long as possible so they maximize billing, if not the parents, then the insurance company, or the state. As soon as you drug someone, without ANY understanding of the underlying causes for the symptoms, you then alter their neurochemistry, thus complicating the issue. It's like clubbing someone over the head as they wander through a labyrinth because you think the problem is that they're wandering, or that they're frustrated at wandering and not getting anywhere, so you want a quick fix. All you do is add another layer of complexity.
And of course HIS behavior is problematized.
What about the insanity of forcing children to where uniforms or attend schools they hate while simultaneously gaslighting them by telling them they live in a free country with rights, yet controlling every fucking aspect of every fucking thing they do? And then pretending like they have some disorder because they act out.
Note how the mother controls him by allowing electronics to function as a both a babysitter, but also as an addiction that can be taken away so the kid suffers withdrawal without even realizing that he's going through it. Then the withdrawal is characterized as some bullshit disorder.
In my opinion, and I may get flack for this, whatever, the guns are the least part of the problem. It's the fact that our society drives people insane in a number of ways for profit, and then blames the insane for being weak when they can't cope any longer. Most people self-harm with drug and alcohol abuse, or some other form of self-destruction, as a way of rebelling against being controlled. But that's just another fake controlled rebellion that people (alcohol industry, drug industry, sickcare industry, etc.) profit off of. So an outlier, assuming they aren't Manchurian candidates, rebels against the non-violence programming . . . . But that's ALSO another fake controlled rebellion that other people (law enforcement, military, intelligence agencies) profit of by running ever-expanding expensive protection rackets.
So, if they ban guns, this outlier will resort to some other form of violence. Someone posted the headline about the guy in China who stabbed a bunch of people.
At some level, state officials may acknowledge that a lack of creativity fuels violent rebellions. I mean, most people aren't creative enough to escape all forms of self-destructive behavior. They've been conditioned that way. People who break out of non-violence programming think they're thinking outside the box. But they're really in another box. The state seeks to limit the size of that box by glorifying guns as tools of destruction throught the mass media. This limits the creativity of the potential rebels, who come to see guns as the only tools available to foment their little rebellions.
As an aside, I've come across many pieces of data that indicate that criminal organizations lobby for gun control laws. It makes it easier for them to rob and otherwise prey on civilians. And the military and police like them because they want a monopoly on going after the bad guys. The former don't want armed civilians because it's harder to prey on them, and the latter don't want armed civilians because then they'll have to find different, less adrenaline-fueled work, which offers less opportunities for graft.
