Boston Marathon Bombing Sparks More Pointless Theories About Angry Young Men

Surveillance camerasSurveillance camerasIn the week since the Tsarnaev brothers--19-year-old Dzhokhar and 26-year-old Tamerlan--bombed the Boston Marathon, pundits have practically inducted the two into the Islamic Terrorist Hall of Fame. But what if the Tsarnaevs' act of terror has less to do with their extreme religious beliefs, and more to do with biology? New York's Lisa Miller:

The older one looks like some kind of loser, a boxing maniac with a love for trashy Euro style. But Dzhokhar, the younger brother, well, he seems like a sweetie pie, with those moony eyes and that fuzzy halo of hair.

Which just goes to show that evil may not have a single face, but it can be reliably found within one kind of body: that of an angry man in his late teens or twenties.

Adam Lanza, Timothy McVeigh, Jared Lee Loughner, James Eagan Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho—some of these villains were afflicted with mental illness, some of them drawn to extremist ideologies. It was easy to distance ourselves from each of them with a variety of alienating labels: autistic gun nut, domestic terrorist, sociopath, embittered immigrant loser. But they have three things indisputably in common. Their gender. Their youth. And a willingness to hate, which forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner distinguishes from simple anger. “You have to be hateful of everyone to kill anyone,” he says. “A person who will undertake a spectacle crime or a mass killing, that is one of the defining qualities: They don’t care that anyone can be killed.”

Angry. Young. Men. The description doesn’t explain the motivations behind every notorious bloodbath, but it’s a place to start—perhaps the only place to start. Men have testosterone, an aggression drug, coursing through their veins; levels rise under stress, and young men have more of it than older ones.

Miller's psychobabble is a close cousin to James Livingston's post-Sandy Hook argument that industrialization makes men feel less like men, which causes them to do awful things beyond their control:

Adam Lanza can’t be accused or convicted of “unconscionable evil,” not in the court of public opinion and not by the criteria of moral philosophy. He wasn’t making a moral choice when he shot his mother in the face with her own gun, and then killed 20 defenseless children. So individual responsibility and culpability aren’t at issue, as they have not been and cannot be since Columbine.

But still. Let us also ask the obvious question. Why do these young white male people whom we routinely characterize as crazy—as exceptions to the rules of civilized comportment and moral choice—always rehearse and recite the same script? If each killer is so deviant, so inexplicable, so exceptional, why does the apocalyptic ending never vary?

The answer is equally obvious. Because American culture makes this script—as against suicide, exile, incarceration, or oblivion—not just available but plausible, actionable, and pleasurable. Semiautomatic, you might say.

But mainly to young white male people who want to kill many other white people with sophisticated weapons.

In Miller's framework, every man is a potential mass murderer because of his biology; in Livingston's, every white man without an explicit religious motivation is a potential mass murderer because of capitalism/mechanization/industrialization. I have a hard time deciding which theory is more offensive to the billions of men across the globe who don't engage in mass murder. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    It couldn't have been because they latched onto a particularly violent and loathsome strain of Islam. No. They were just angry young men. It was the testosterone talking here not the Koran.

  • SugarFree||

    Adam Lanza, Timothy McVeigh, Jared Lee Loughner, James Eagan Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho

    All Muslims.

  • John||

    So what? These guys were Muslim and their ideology seems to be what motivated to do them.

    The fact that not all nuts are Muslim doesn't preclude these nuts from being Muslim or their particular insane brand of Islam making them nuts.

    Jesus Christ SF, you are as dumb as this fucking broad. Maybe each one of those guys had their own reasons for doing what they did and thus each case should be judged on its own? \

    Sorry dude, but some crazy Muslims blew some people up because they thought their religion demanded it. It is what it is. Sorry the facts don't fit your narrative.

  • Tman||

    Settle down John, Nutrasweet was just making the point that not all recent horrific mass murderers have been Muslims.

    Prior to 9/11, McVeigh held the record and he wasn't a Muslim.

    This doesn't mean that certain forms Islam aren't producing mass-murdering psychos -it most certainly is- but that doesn't mean that Islam is the only thing that causes people to guy psycho and commit mass murders.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Watching John make arguments against SugarFree that clearly apply to his own position is like watching Fight Club. Only slightly less horrible because no one is having sex with Helena Bonham Carter.

  • ||

    "The first rule of Fight Club is don't invite John."

  • John||

    Oh really? How do my arguments clearly apply to my own position? Do you even know what my own position is? I am thinking not and you are just making up for your inability to understand what is going on by being a smug twat.

  • SugarFree||

    Oh, shit. John made a post that didn't mention the bombers were Muslims! You owe me $5 Epi!

  • ||

    "The second rule of Fight Club is don't talk about NutraSweet. Or to him."

  • John||

    Why does it bother you so much they were Muslims? Why are you so upset about that fact? Are you one of those people who was desperately hoping it was an angry tea partier? Are you that committed to the narrative that Muslims can never kill anyone?

  • JW||

    Why are you so committed to collectivizing Muslims, John?

    I worked in a building full of them and none of them ever tried to kill me.

  • $park¥||

    I worked in a building full of them and none of them ever tried to kill me.

    YET!

    /John

  • John||

    Are collectivizing Nazis JW? Not every Muslim believes what these guys do. But some of them sure as hell do. And every once in a while in places all over the world they blow something up or kill a bunch of people in the name of their ideology. We are not talking about all Muslims, just the ones who believe in this strand of Islam.

    Why is that such a difficult fact for you people to accept?

  • Killazontherun||

    Not every Nazi was a complete piece of shit, nor even sided with racialist theories, so you can make observations about the aggregate behavior of a group of people but it tells you little about individuals. It tells you practically nothing about von Braun that he was a Nazi, SS even.

  • SugarFree||

    John, stop acting like a child. You mentioned something that had nothing to do with the argument Miller presented and I called you on it. Whining and getting all emotional is not helping your case one bit.

  • Hugh Akston||

    SugarFree, we all know that your adherence to a particularly nasty strain of Islam means that you are physically compelled to continue arguing with John no matter how convinced he is of his own rightness.

  • SugarFree||

    Hugh, sometimes it's like you are looking right into my soul

  • Hugh Akston||

    The really horrible part is when it blinks.

  • John||

    It had everything to do with the argument Miller presented. These guys didn't pant a bomb because they were young males. They planted a bomb because they were crazy fundamentalist Muslims. We don't have to speculate why they did this, they told us. And Miller is only speculating because she wants them to have done it because they were white males not because they were fundamentalist Islamics. She is just like you in the sense that the existence of Muslims that might be dangerous makes her unhappy and therefore must be denied.

  • SugarFree||

    Lisa Miller and I are quite concerned that you can read our minds, John. Quite concerned.

    Keep digging that hole, John. No sense letting a little hot-headedness go undefended.

  • John||

    I don't have to read Lisa's mind. She wrote an article telling me what she thinks. She thinks these guys did this because they are young males and that is what young males do. And I am saying that is nothing but wish fulfillment on her part. These guys did this because they believed in a crazy ideology. Their being male had nothing to do with it.

    So again, what are you arguing here?

  • SugarFree||

    She thinks these guys did this because they are young males and that is what young males do.

    If you had read the article, you'd she she places blame on Islam in the Boston cases. But the entire article was about young men, and you whined that she didn't denounce Islam to the fullest extent necessary to satisfy you.

    You jumped the gun to get on your hobby horse and you are too prideful and childish to admit it.

  • John||

    Sure the entire article was about young men. And the point was that these guys did this because young men are just violent and thus get violent over various excuses. And that is just bunk in cases like this. This was not a case of someone getting drunk on a Saturday night and feeling their manhood and bashing a beer bottle over someone's head. This was a case of two people taking very deliberate and senseless acts in support of a specific ideology. And it is an act plenty of women, though not as many as men, have engaged in over the years. Her whole argument is just complete fucking bullshit and nothing but thinly veiled wish fulfillment that this case be about something, anything other than what it is about.

  • ||

    From wikipedia:

    women make up roughly 15% of the suicide bombers within groups which utilize females


    (emphasis mine)

    So women make up 15% of bombers from an even smaller subset of groups that bomb. That isn't really "plenty of women" in the grand scheme of things.

    The report [issued by intelligence analysts in the U.S. army in 2011] further stated that female suicide bombers often were "grieving the loss of family members [and] seeking revenge against those they feel are responsible for the loss, unable to produce children, [and/or] dishonored through sexual indiscretion."

    Women are generally radicalized by specific emotional experiences, they aren't generally a good pool to pull from.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    John can't help but refuse to walk back his generalizations, because if he ever admitted he was wrong, the world would implode, so instead we must believe that we live in a bizarro world in which we are merely failing to understand the language John uses and instead assume a much different person than the one that presents here.

  • John||

    What generalization have I walked back on LIT? The very first sentence I wrote was

    John| 4.23.13 @ 12:13PM |#

    It couldn't have been because they latched onto a particularly violent and loathsome strain of Islam.

    Which part of "particularly violent and loathsome strain" do you no understand? I never made any generalizations about Islam or Muslims. I did the opposite of generalization. I specifically went out of my way to say what these guys believed was not Islam in general but a "strain of it", which it is.

    No why don't you walk back on the grotesque characterizations of what I actually said or just admit you are a dishonest fuck you can't make an argument without lying about their opponent?

  • I Dug It||

    Why do they have to resort to violence when they don't get their way? Why can't they just become ambulance chasers and urban politicians like the Micks and the Wops?

  • Loki||

    Why can't they just become ambulance chasers and urban politicians like the Micks Kikes and the Wops Moolies?

    FTFY. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a Mick lawyer or a Wop politician? The Micks are too drunk to make it through law school and the Wops are too busy running all the rackets, when they're not making canolis. /racist

  • ||

    Shut up you a-stupid canoli!

  • I Dug It||

    "Moolies" -- that's a new one on me. I had to look it up, and I'm part Wop!

  • Loki||

    I thought about going with the old standy "nigger", but decided to mix it up a bit. I didn't realize it was actually an italian slang (according to urban dictionary). That actually kind of makes it unintentionally ironic. I like it when things work out that.

  • SugarFree||

    Jesus Christ SF, you are as dumb as this fucking broad.

    Fuck you, John. I know you got your warboner all rigid, but the common denominator she was arguing is young men, not religion.

    You're the one with a narrative, and you've been popping off about it for a week.

  • John||

    Fuck you, John. I know you got your warboner all rigid, but the common denominator she was arguing is young men, not religion.

    And that is fucking idiotic. Not every act of violence is committed by young men. And we don't have to look for deep explanations for why these people did this. They told us.

    There are a group of people out there who believe in a particularly nasty strain of Islam and think that it is their duty to blow people up in service of it. This is nothing new. How many people actually believe this and are willing to act on it and what we should do about it is debatable. But their existence and motivation is not.

    You don't like that fact. It doesn't fit the "brown people are always groovy" narrative. Tough shit. I don't like it either. But it is what it is. But straining to find other reasons that fit whatever ones political or personal prejudices is just a waste of time. There are women who blow themselves up in the service of this ideology. Hell, the FBI arrested a woman for being part of the plot. This has nothing to do with "young men".

  • SugarFree||

    You don't like that fact. It doesn't fit the "brown people are always groovy" narrative. Tough shit.

    Who are you arguing with, John? It's not me. But keep on beating that strawman, Tulpa. Beat it up real good.

  • John||

    Who are you arguing with? What are you doing than acting offended that anyone might mention these guys stated motivation for doing this?

  • SugarFree||

    What are you doing than acting offended that anyone might mention these guys stated motivation for doing this?

    Damn, that SugarFree in your head is one diabolical son-of-a-bitch. Did I also probe you on my UFO?

  • T||

    Well, to be fair, you are diabolical, just not in the way John supposes.

  • John Thacker||

    Not every act of violence is committed by young men.

    The vast majority of acts of violence are committed by young men. At the same time, the vast majority of young men do not commit acts of violence.

    The bombers were motivated by their particular belief that Muslims are engaged in a war against the rest of the world. That belief is motivated both by them being Muslim, and by US foreign policy. Yet the vast majority of Muslims, and the vast majority of people who dislike US foreign policy, do not commit acts of violence.

    It's rather apparent what the parallels are.

  • SugarFree||

    That belief is motivated both by them being Muslim, and by US foreign policy.

    [Sutherland screech] How dare you suggest that the actions of the US have anything to do with what the world thinks about us!

  • John||

    That is right Sugar free. If the US would just stop defending itself, these guys would just go away. I am sure.

  • ||

    That is right Sugar free. If the US would just stop defending itself, these guys would just go away.

    Since when is attacking the same as defending? You really are in bizarro world, John.

  • John||

    That belief is motivated both by them being Muslim, and by US foreign policy

    That is wrong on both accounts and insulting to both sides. First being Muslim does not necessarily motivate one to be at war with the rest of the world. In fact many and probably most Muslims would say just the opposite that their religion motivates them not to be at war with any one.

    Second, US foreign policy is about 1/100th of the dogs breakfast of historical wrongs that motivates radical Islamics. To single out US foreign policy is to perpetuate the idiotic belief that we can somehow control these people if only we properly order our behavior.

  • JW||

    Anders Breivik anyone?

  • John||

    Killers come in all sizes and types. But so what? If I lived in Norway, I would probably wonder about there being some crazy white supremacists who plan to whack people.

    If we ever get an Anders Breivik here, we might be too. Until then, we have these clowns.

  • Loki||

    If we ever get an Anders Breivik here

    ...we wouldn't be able to set foot outside for days without slipping and falling because everything would be covered in jizz from the media's simultaneous orgasm over finally haveing a racist white teabagger terrorist to blame for killing a bunch of sweet, innocent children.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Gah! Thanks for that visual...yikes.

  • Zeb||

    "some crazy Muslims blew some people up because they thought their religion demanded it"

    We don't know that yet. I think it seems very likely. But you don't get a prize for being the first to be right.

  • GILMORE||

    These guys were Muslim and their ideology seems to be what motivated ...them

    Aside from older brother having once 'linked' to some jihadi ranting, what evidence is there that their 'motivation' was religious?

    It is also possible John that they are Muslim, and nevertheless did what they did for any number of reasons having nothing to do with islam.

    While I certainly wouldn't discount late-onset jihadi impulses, there's wasn't a whole lot of Koran-thumping, beard-growing, praying 5 times a day type-action that I've heard about.

    Just as "not all nuts are muslim", "not all muslims are nuts because of islam"... they can be nuts for a billion reasons. Most of which are all as equally stupid as blowing people up because something something allah blah blah insult prophet...

  • CatoTheElder||

    It is equally true that none fit the profile of either the libertarian or the conservative strain of the "tea party".

    Neither did any of the Muslim terrorists.

    Like governments of all stripes, the jihad's leaders have learned to exploit the testosterone levels of young men. Suicide bombings and other terrorist tactics almost always employ young men.

  • SugarFree||

    Young men seem to find it particularly difficult to weigh long term goals and settle for a quick fix. I know I and a lot of the men I knew that issue. Combine that with a grievance industry, notions of fairness that only a 3-year-old would take seriously, some backwards fairy tales about otherworldly rewards (but only certain backwards fairy tales about otherworldly rewards, right?), and the media and you getting a frothy mixture of shit and ideology that is deadly.

  • John||

    Young men are just fit and enthusiastic. There were plenty of horrible female communists and fascists who did unbelievably bad things. There is nothing about "young men" that makes them any more or less susceptible to buying into crazy violent ideologies. Even in the case of radical Islam, there have been plenty of female suicide bombers over the years. Not as many as there have been men. But enough to disprove the theory that there is something special about young men that makes them buy into this stuff.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Angry young white men in particular, according to Livingston.

  • John||

    But still. Let us also ask the obvious question. Why do these young white male people whom we routinely characterize as crazy

    It is the "white males" again. Jesus tap dancing Christ. That is so fucking stupid there is nothing you can say to it. It is like a giant vortex or bigoted stupidity.

  • Loki||

    Ah, but ti's a giant vortex of bigoted stupidity aimed at white males, who for eons have enjoyed PRIVELEDGE as leaders of the PATRIARCHY. Which makes it FAIR to demonize them now. So it's neither bigoted nor stupid. In fact your the stupid bigot for not checking your PRIVELEDGE. /Lisa Miller's Gener Studies professor.

  • Loki||

    *Gender, not "Gener"

  • Jordan||

    In all fairness, I'm a young man, and reading Miller and Livingston's articles made me want to hulk out and start smashing things.

  • Rasilio||

    "Miller's psychobabble is a close cousin to James Livingston's post-Sandy Hook argument that industrialization makes men feel less like men, which causes them to do awful things beyond their control:"

    Has Livingston ever read a friggin history book or even heard of the crusades?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Or the Reconquista or the original Muslim conquests or the 30 Years War or the 100 Years War or Alexander the Great or the Rape of Nanking or Mongols or the Vandals or the Avars or the Huns or the Ostrogths or the Visigoths or Magyars, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Or the Reconquista or the original Muslim conquests or the 30 Years War or the 100 Years War or Alexander the Great or the Rape of Nanking or Mongols or the Vandals or the Avars or the Huns or the Ostrogths or the Visigoths or Magyars, etc., etc., ad nauseum. all of human history.

    Simpler

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Or the exploits of the great Muslim hero that Tamerlan's name honors.

  • Loki||

    Has Livingston ever read a friggin history book or even heard of the crusades?

    I'm sure he's quite familiar with the war of European Christian aggression against the peaceful brown Middle Eastern Muslims who were peacefully just minding their own peaceful business when the pope (another angry white male) got a burr up his ass. /sarc

  • ||

    Morons like Miller are frightened by the fact that they do not understand why someone would do what these guys did, and so have to try and make up some explanation, usually one which also fits their idiotic political views. It's the most simple-minded of simple-minded psychological rationalizations.

    It's also highly revealing about Miller, and not in a good way.

  • SugarFree||

    It shouldn't be blown out of proportion, but there is a real and nasty strain in certain circles that is intent on pathologizing maleness. From ADHD drugs to rants about "testosterone poisoning," they seem to be suggesting male is something to be cured.

    In a reverse of the feminist cliche, don't these women have fathers, brothers, sons and husbands? Do they want them treated like a disease?

  • I Dug It||

    Yes and yes.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure any relationships they had with males in their lives were dysfunctional.

  • SugarFree||

    Probably. Appealing to the empathy of sociopaths is a losing endeavor.

  • ||

    What the fuck did you just call me?!?

  • SugarFree||

    I call you my special boy.

  • T||

    "Never appeal to a man's better nature. He might not have one."

  • Pro Libertate||

    Which is more of a disease than maleness. Besides, we all secretly know that if women ran the world, the nuclear holocaust would've happened years ago.

  • JW||

    Hey, we'd at least have vigorous kinetic actions every month. AMIRITE?

  • I Dug It||

    That's what really destroyed the Krell.

  • tarran||

    It's like someone read Glory Season and thought it was a cook-book!

  • Doctor Whom||

    The radfems I know, and I do have the misfortune of knowing some, pull a "no true Scotsman" for those men (if any) of whom they approve.

  • SugarFree||

    Yeah, you see a lot of that on Jezebel. All of them had awesome Dads that were/are perfect and were lot the lurking rapists-in-waiting the rest of men are.

    Of course, I counter with: If your father was go great, how'd you turn out this way, average Jezebellian?

  • GILMORE||

    SugarFree| 4.23.13 @ 12:21PM |#

    It shouldn't be blown out of proportion, but there is a real and nasty strain in certain circles that is intent on pathologizing maleness

    If they are simply helped to better understand the horrible things that their patriarchical dominance of culture has caused throughout the centuries they will learn to be more compliant and helpful and community-oriented and nurturing and stop killing and fighting and repressing and do the fucking laundry

  • John||

    It is obvious on a superficial level why they did it. They thought their religion demanded it. Why they thought that is pretty much unexplainable.

    But the blowback theory people are not any better than this woman. Thinking that people are motivated to do obviously insane things by US foreign policy is no better an explanation than "they were angry white males". In both cases you are projecting your political beliefs and prejudices onto the mind of a nut.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Explanations the don't create a solution that involves mass murder or enslavement are better that the opposite. Frankly I'm waiting for you to go nuts John. You certainly have the rhetoric to kill a bunch of people.

  • John||

    Frankly, you can go fuck yourself LIT. I am waiting for one of you assholes to talk about how the people of Boston had this coming.

    Or maybe we ought to both take each other's arguments as they come instead of hoping and praying our strawmen come true? How about that?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Since your arguments boil down to saying how certain religions are naturally evil, you don't leave much wiggle room for not proposing genocide or massive oppression, but you just go ahead and believe you're not a maniacal fuck.

  • John||

    Since your arguments boil down to saying how certain religions are naturally evil,

    Again, how about you trying to read and understand what I am saying. I have never said anything like that. I have never said Islam is naturally evil. There is nothing naturally evil about it. But there is a strain of it that some people do believe that is really fucked up.

    Again go fuck yourself. I am not living up to your stereotype and not confirming your strawman. Okay. So stop pretending I am.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Since your arguments boil down to saying how certain religions are naturally evil, you don't leave much wiggle room for not proposing genocide or massive oppression

    In the fervid imagination of Cosmotards all religious beliefs are good and worthy of respect, regardless of what those beliefs actually are.

    No doubt, had they lived in the 16th century they would have defended the Aztecs religious belief that human sacrifice was essential to maintain order. Who after all, is the Cosmo to judge any non white Christian's motivation?

    Beyond that, the Cosmo confuses an ideological belief, such as religion, with nationality or race. Hence, LIT assertion that opposing the benevolence of any belief system is equivalent to genocide.

  • Eric||

    I don't know that I would lump these guys into the Adam Lanza level of nutiness. He did what he did because he's completely fucked in the head. These guys, supposing that they had been radicalized by Islam, were instead conducting jihad upon an enemy of thier religion. There is a big difference.

    Not to create a false equivalency here, but what separates these guys and their irregular warfare, from a CIA analyst who calls in an airstrike on an entire wedding party in Afghanistan to kill a single AQ operative? Both are willing to commit atrocious acts in thier war against "evil".

    US Nationalism is very similar to Islamic Fundamentalism in that both rely on radicalization to get otherwise harmless individuals to commit horrific acts.

  • John||

    You just did create a false equivalency. Call me when the CIA dresses as locals plants bombs in the middle of civilian crowds for the specific purpose of killing anyone who happens to walk by.

    Until then, no the CIA is not these people.

  • Eric||

    The point being that we have people who do terrible things in the name of the U.S. because they have been radicalized to believe that the costs (blown up Afghani civilians) are worth the rewards (Americans are safer). We're just so surrounded by this mindset that it seems normal. But it's also why the rest of the world sees us as monsters akin to the very Islamic radicals that we're fighting.

  • Zeb||

    If they can be motivated by their religion to do nasty things, I don't know why it is such a stretch to say that US foreign policy had something to do with it as well. It seems to me that to deny that US foreign policy had something to do with it is just as nuts as denying that religion had something to do with it.

  • GILMORE||

    ""It is obvious on a superficial level why they did it.""

    I.e. "Simply apply blanket judgements sans evidence! Its' easier that way!"

  • ||

    Morons like Miller are frightened by the fact that they do not understand why someone would do what these guys did, and so have to try and make up some explanation, usually one which also fits their idiotic political views.

    I don't really care why they did it. We've been asking these types of questions for countless years and no one has come up with a way to predict who will commit atrocities or when. The bottom line is, it doesn't matter why they did it. Punish them and be done with it. Going on and on about it just provides incentive for others to get their 15 minutes.

  • Leo||

    You see the world through your cynical eyes
    You're a troubled young man i can tell
    You've got it all in the palm of your hand
    But your hand's wet with sweat and your head needs a rest

    And you're fooling yourself if you don't believe it
    You're kidding yourself if you don't believe it
    How can you be such an angry young man
    When your future looks quite bright to me

  • Trespassers W||

    Great, now I have that keyboard line stuck in my head.

  • Pro Libertate||

    So you're saying this is all Styx's fault?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    +1

  • T||

    I can certainly see pinning on it on Dennis DeYoung. I'll give Tommy Shaw a pass, though.

  • GILMORE||

    Domo Arigato
    Domo

  • ||

    Ah, Styx before they sold out...

    Good stuff.

  • I Dug It||

    What's all this about a bombing?

  • sarcasmic||

  • Gray Ghost||

    +1 Mohammed's Radio

  • ||

    People's Republic of MD strikes again

  • Rasilio||

    Believe it or not, my wifes life long dream was to work for that organization to "save the bay"

  • Lord Humungus||

    you know who else was an "angry young man?"

    me. It's pretty standard for the age to get carried away with your beliefs.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Elvis Costello?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Obama?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    James Livingston's post-Sandy Hook argument that industrialization makes men feel less like men

    Holy fuck that guy's stupid.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Straight out of Marx. Alienation and all that.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    What is the best beer to put in chili? I tried straight Sam and felt like I could taste it a little too much.

  • John||

    Guinness or any kind of stout. One of the best things to put in chili is coffee. A heavier stout beer with some coffee notes gives the chili some backbone and depth of flavor.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I did end up with some coffee-like note. I wasn't sure how chili critics would react to that kind of thing.

  • John||

    I love putting coffee in chili. I am not a professional chili cook off guy. But I have always thought coffee in chili was pretty standard. But try a heavier beer. I think the Sam Adams was probably a bit light and a bit bitter for the job.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Coffee stout!

  • Gray Ghost||

    How about a dopplebock? High sugars, high extract, high alcohol to help pull out components from the other ingredients.

    I use Shiner Bock, myself, though that's not even really a bock beer. Beats having to drink it straight.

  • Zeb||

    I haven't used coffee, but I always put some cocoa in. And I make the best chili.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't like putting beer in chili because I don't like the taste of hops in food.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Not all beer is hoppy, or hoppy enough to overpower a flavor like spicy chili. No beer battered whatever for you?

  • sarcasmic||

    I do like beer batter, though it's usually made with some wimpy lager that you can't taste anyway.

    Last couple times I've put been into chili, all it gave was a "green" hop aftertaste. I didn't like it.

  • Zeb||

    I could see that being a problem.

  • Nephilium||

    Look for a good smoked beer.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    the billions of men across the globe who don't engage in mass murder.

    Have not yet engaged in mass murder.

    Merely awaiting the right moment.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    Gentlemen,

    Is it time to hoist the Jolly Roger and begin cutting throats?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    I love articles and commenters that groupthink what the problem is and leave an obvious ellipse in place of the authors idea of a solution, which usually involves completely changing society to their own narrow view.

    John,
    Terrible people like to get together and plan terrible things, but you would have us bomb all of Islam in your "ellipse" of a solution. You're as bad as Livingston and Miller.

  • John||

    ohn,
    Terrible people like to get together and plan terrible things, but you would have us bomb all of Islam in your "ellipse" of a solution.

    Oh really? That comes as a hell of a surprise to me. I have never called for bombing anyone over this, other than a half joking call to Nuke North Korea if they were found to be responsible. And that was not a serious suggestion.

    Why do you think I think this? What gives you this idea? If you don't agree with me, fine. But do me a favor and pay some attention and stop assuming I think things I obviously don't.

    I don't think we should bomb anyone over this nor do I think every or even a large minority of Islamics believe this way. But the reality is what these people did is not just random evil anymore than what the fascists or the communists did was random evil. They have an ideology that motivates them.

    If admitting the obvious bothers you so much, I don't what to tell you other than please in the future pay some attention and stop ascribing views to me I don't hold.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    The day you say something about Islam with the slightest bit of equanimity is the day I'll believe your solutions don't range from "bomb the shit out of them" to "invade and kick'em til they love us"

  • John||

    In other words, you admit I have never said such things but you know I believe it. That is pathetic. My guess is I know more actual Muslims and have been around the culture more than you have ever thought about the subject.

    You are no better than a liberal screaming "racism" over everything. Again, stop pretending everyone lives up to your strawman and prejudices.

  • Trespassers W||

    He wasn’t making a moral choice when he shot his mother in the face with her own gun, and then killed 20 defenseless children.

    What?

    I mean, what?

    The only way this sentence makes sense is if "moral" means "lobster" and "choice" means "roll".

  • John||

    I am thinking Lanza made the mother of all moral choices there. And if he wasn't making a moral choice, then he was just insane and so out of touch with reality his actions don't reflect on anything or anyone.

  • Trespassers W||

    Good point. You can't have it both ways.

  • MJGreen||

    I'm gonna head out for a lobster roll, anyone want anything?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Going to Jiro's? I'd like a plate of whatever he's serving.

  • Trespassers W||

    Yes. Two lobster rolls.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    One Lobster Girl, please.

  • Pro Libertate||

    LTC(ret) John will have a roll with the Lobster Girl. Wait, make that two rolls.

  • SugarFree||

    "I'll have one of your young on a roll."

    "We're outta rolls."

  • ||

    I'll take a coupla steamed 2 pounders with some drawn buttah, pleeze.

  • MJGreen||

    These killings are such a rare occurrence, I don't see what the point is of speculating like this. Maybe there is a reason the perpetrators are more often men than women, but it's such an infinitesimal part of the population, what could possibly be learned? More importantly, what could possibly be done? Are we to now shame all young men for what a handful of crazies have done, or institute society-wide programs to change young men?

    Also, is Adam Lanza the "autistic gun nut"? So he's a gun nut now? Because he used guns?

  • H. ReardEn||

    Are we to now shame all young men for what a handful of crazies have done, or institute society-wide programs to change young men?

    Yes. This is exactly what Lisa Miller is advocating. From her: Angry. Young. Men. The description doesn’t explain the motivations behind every notorious bloodbath, but it’s a place to start—perhaps the only place to start. Men have testosterone, an aggression drug, coursing through their veins; levels rise under stress, and young men have more of it than older ones.

    I think that she is arguing for estrogen treatment for all males 16-35 years old.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Of course, this doesn't explain the billions of men who don't commit such crimes.

  • H. ReardEn||

    But they have potential, thanks to testosterone.

    I wish I could come up with one of those witty acronyms for my poorly acronymed Testosterone Control Act.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Control of Aberrant Testosterone?

  • GILMORE||

    Pro Libertate| 4.23.13 @ 12:58PM |#
    Of course, this doesn't explain the billions of men who don't commit such crimes.

    UH!? Yes it DOES! Instead of going on the murderous rampages that their testes are constantly encouraging them to commit, they end up channeling their irrational inner rage into sexist repression & othering of women when they should be doing things like listening to women and stop always thinking they can 'fix' things when sometimes its more important to share feelings and mow the lawn more.

  • leviramsey||

    I seem to remember it being an article of faith among the environmentalists as well that there's a whole lot of estrogen and estrogen-like substances in our modern chemical society and that we're seeing estrogen levels rising in modern men.

    Which is incongruous with the common belief that we're seeing more of these sorts of mass-aggression events.

  • GILMORE||

    I don't see what the point is of speculating like this.

    Reinforcing pre-existing biases, DUH!

  • Trespassers W||

    But mainly to young white male people who want to kill many other white people with sophisticated weapons.

    Or pressure cookers. Whatever.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Oh, come on. You're not making a moral choice when you swat a fly call for the castration of boys.

    Don't be so thin skinned.

  • Loki||

    Men have testosterone, an aggression drug, coursing through their veins

    It's not a drug, it's a naturally occuring hormone, you stupid vile cunt! If I'm angry it's because of retards like Lisa Miller spewing pop psychology bullshit like this, and all the mouthbreathing fucks who lap it all up and nod along to it.

  • JW||

    All hopped up on testosterone, huh?

  • ||

    Also, isn't this a gross oversimplification of what testosterone actually does? I was reading something about this the other day that suggested these kinds of arguments really mischaracterize how testosterone makes you feel.

  • Loki||

    Also, isn't this a gross oversimplification of what testosterone actually does?

    Yes. I know, I know, a prog-tard making a gross over simplification/ generalization? Shocked face.

  • MJGreen||

    It's an aggression chemical!

  • H. ReardEn||

    A chemical WMD.

  • GILMORE||

    Men have testosterone, an aggression drug, coursing through their veins

    AND it makes them bald. Shit is no joke.

    Now that we've cleared that up, what's the "dumb, bitchy cunt" drug, then?

  • Voros McCracken||

    "I have a hard time deciding which theory is more offensive to the billions of men across the globe who don't engage in mass murder."

    This humanities degree is not just gonna use itself, you know?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    if women ran the world, the nuclear holocaust would've happened years ago.

    The ultimate cure for cramps and bloating.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Is it time to hoist the Jolly Roger and begin cutting throats?

    *looks up from whetstone*

    Who, me?

  • triclops||

    Just for the sake of safety, all young men should be relocated to internment camps for the duration of their adolescence and early adulthood. I am sure many of them are trustworthy, but if it saves just one life...

  • Invisible Finger||

    We used to have them. They were called "school" and "armed services". We could blame the feminists for sticking their noses in.

  • Loki||

    Just for the sake of safety, all young men should be relocated to internment camps for the duration of their adolescence and early adulthood.

    And subjected to estrogen therapy to reduce the influence of teh evul testosterone on their brains. Also, they will be required to watch nightly showings of Sandra Bullock movies until they're all pussified hipster beta males. Older men who haven't gone though the program will be exterminated. It's the only way to be sure.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'd like a plate of whatever he's serving.

    Shrimp.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Plate o' shrimp?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    but we serve it in a bowl.

  • Pro Libertate||

    A lot of people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch of unconnected incidents and things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice of coincidence that lays on top of everything. Give you an example, show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, "plate," or "shrimp," or "plate o' shrimp" out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconsciousness.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    You eat a lot of acid, back in the hippie days?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'll give you another instance: you know how everybody's into weirdness right now?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I don't read them books.

  • carol||

    If premenstrual dysphoric disorder is a legitimate defense for women who commit murder, and according to Law and Order it is, then shouldn't raging testosterone be a legitimate defense for young men who commit murder?

    Miller seems to believe that by identifying a commonality between the young men mentioned that we can ascertain motive. I believe that Miller is what we commonly refer to as a "simpleton". But for all I know the Black Widows Brigade may just be a bunch of estrogen hopped up harpies who could benefit from Midol and a warm bath.

  • John||

    You can't lump disparate people together by sex or race. McVeigh is nothing like Lanza who is nothing like these guys and so forth. But you can lump people together by ideology and motivations. Some people and cases are similar but it is not because of the color of their skin or their sex.

  • carol||

    Exactly. However, Miller is doing just that. And I believe that she would be the first to bitch if a Conservative drew a similar conclusion about all Muslims, all blacks, etc.

  • John||

    Or women in the case of Andrea Yates. You could write an article just like this asking the question about what is it about women than causes them to engage in high profile murders of their children?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Estrogen. I already covered that below.

  • Libertymike||

    Which Law & Order? The parent, Criminal Intent or SVU?

    Which episode?

  • carol||

    SVU. Season 6, Episode 19. "Intoxicated"

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    He wasn’t making a moral choice when he shot his mother in the face with her own gun, and then killed 20 defenseless children. So individual responsibility and culpability aren’t at issue,

    What the fucking fuck? I mean, I know proggy's worldviews are fucked up, but seriously? Shooting his mom and 26 others wasn't a moral choice???

    And the part about individual responsibility and culpability is just standard lefty fare. Those things are myths.

  • John||

    She honestly seems to think that Lanza was compelled by his white maleness to commit those crimes. I would be curious to see what she would have to say about someone like Andrea Yates. Was she compelled by her femaleness to drown her children? If Lanza's sex, instead of his obvious evil and insanity, is so important to explaining his actions, then why wouldn't Yates' sex be equally important in explaining her crimes?

    Do we need to watch all women and be mindful of the dangers of them killing their children?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Of course, John. They all have estrogen, an anti-logic drug, running through their veins. We have to do something about estrogen poisoning before EVERY child ends up dead at the hands of their mother.

  • MJGreen||

    Adam Lanza: "I blame society. Society made me what I am."

    *shoots another kid*

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Maybe they were angry because they were deprived of alt-text.

  • Fluffy||

    And a willingness to hate, which forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner distinguishes from simple anger. “You have to be hateful of everyone to kill anyone,” he says. “A person who will undertake a spectacle crime or a mass killing, that is one of the defining qualities: They don’t care that anyone can be killed.”

    Ultimately, this is nonsense.

    Are soldiers "hateful of everyone"? Are police? (Taking a step back from our daily cop rage for a moment.)

    When a rape victim kills her rapist, is she "hateful of everyone"?

    Of course not.

    People engage in lethal violence when they think they're entitled to do so. It doesn't require hate at all, actually. It can be done purely by calculation. It can be done in a fit of righteous indignation. It can be done with the heart stirred by patriotism. It can be done in any number of ways.

    The moral question is "Which set of circumstances entitle me to kill folks, and what folks am I entitled to kill once those circumstances arise?" The Tsarnievs answered that question wrongly, so we can them "evil". The guys who shot their way into Dachau and Treblinka answered that question rightly, so we call them "heroes". But it's the same question, just with different answers. And that makes it all about thinking, and not about evil murder hormones coursing through anybody's veins.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Of course, you would say that, with all of that testosterone and pent up hate.

  • John||

    What Fluffy said times ten. It is the motivation and the circumstances that makes it evil

  • OldMexican||

    I have a hard time deciding which theory is more offensive to the billions of men across the globe who don't engage in mass murder.


    Or to the hundreds of women who do.

  • ||

    When the FBI does their sting operations and catches "hapless young men" said operations are often criticized for "manufacturing" crimes and the idea espoused by many is that these hapless young men weren't a real threat and couldn't really pull off some kind of major attack.

    I think what the Marathon bombing helps enforce is a legal principle that goes back to our founding - intent is the essence of the law. Even some "hapless' young men, with a little motivation can wreak some serious havoc. If they have the intent and a little motivation, it doesn't take much skillz. In some instances we have gotten lucky, when bombs didn't go off... they didn't even have enough skillz to make a viable device in many cases.

    What is the solution? Well, clearly vigilance, good intel, proactive law enforcement and intelligence work etc. all help but in brief

    THERE IS NO SOLUTION

    You can't prevent these kind of events from happening. Sure, we'll catch SOME of these guys because they can't keep their yaps shut and/or we'll act on intel early, or we catch them in sting ("manufactured" crime wanking aside) but the reality is that motivated hapless young men will always be out there and we will always be vulnerable.

  • ||

    What we shouldn't do is start eroding civil rights (not that we haven't already - see patriot act, FISA, etc. etc.) , passing kneejerk legislation, running around paranoid or scared or giving in in any way to these scum. We can look to Israel for inspiration in how they have dealt with far worse terrorist threats than we have ever had to deal with.

    Hey, our country was founded (to paraphrase PJ ORourke) by Angry Young Men (tm). We aint getting rid of them and those who have evil intent will always be a threat. That's the reality in the 21st century.

    It's a cliche, but let's not let the terrorists win - no kneejerk rights-stripping legislation, no cowering in fear.

    oh, and not to get all semantical and shit but

    "It's not a drug, it's a naturally occuring hormone, you stupid vile cunt! "

    It's both. Saying it's a naturally occurring hormone doesn't mean it's not a drug when synthesized and administered ... the same is true of adrenaline, estrogen (used for birth control), or insulin. They are all naturally occurring hormones. They are also drugs.

  • John||

    I don't buy the "hapless men" talk. My worry with the FBI sting operations is that one of these days they are going to lose track and someone is going to blow something up. Also I worry that they are entrapping people to do things that they wouldn't have otherwise done. Not that that gives me any sympathy for the ones they catch. If you let yourself be talked into engaging in a bomb plot, you have only yourself to blame for t he consequences. But it is a stupid and dangerous practice that is going to get someone killed one of these days if it hasn't already.

  • ||

    Entrapment is always a concern, but the cases I have read definitely didn't meet that criteria. I worked undercover a long time, so I had a lot of training in the law of entrapment. It's definitely a concern when you are setting up stings. Usually, they let the guys go pretty "overt act" range before making the arrest which helps, and most of the conversations are taped which takes the wind out of the sails of the entrapment defense when you can hear these guys willingly taking part.

  • John||

    What they seem to be doing is finding a group of guys who are talking about doing something but haven't actually done anything. If they had already done something, you could just arrest them for conspiracy. So what they do is send in an informant who then offers to sell them a bomb or enable them to actually engage in the act. Then they do it and they have them. That seems to me to be awfully risky. What if these guys find a bomb somewhere else?

  • ||

    I'm not sure how risky it is. They have these guys under pretty constant surveillance. I am just saying I think it's good police work - I like the proactive stuff as long as they make sure they are not entrapping, which basically boils down to enticing somebody to do something they are not otherwise presupposed to do.

    BC Police are really good with these proactive stings. They have bait cars with video cameras inside and kill switches and they leave them with the keys in the ignition and wait for some nimrod to come and steal them. The video is often awesome when you see the guys get all wacked out when the vehicle magically turns off and comes to a stop (due to remote operation by the cops) and then the cops are there and arrest them.

    EVERY year when we get cold snaps we get tons of auto thefts with the classic "I just let it warm up for a few minutes with the engine running" Ugh.

    Lots of "I just ran into starbux for a minute and yea I left my engine running, but it was just a minute" ... sigh.

    So, I like the bait cars.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    I love the reactions to the bait cars. The excuses inevitably given are great, too. "oh, I thought this was my buddy's car. I was just playin a prank on him."

  • Zeb||

    I get the impression that a lot of the time the FBI cares a lot more about getting people than about actually stopping people from doing bad things. I remember reading about one case, in CA I think, where a FBI undecover agent started trolling people at a mosque to try to see if any were up for any terrorism. One guy, who the agent was pretty aggressively trying to push in that direction actually called the FBI to report on the under cover guy and the guy still kept trying to get him to say something terroristic. Seems to me that when someone calls in to report your undercover agent for talking terrorism, it's time to kill that particular operation.

  • JW||

    Nothing to see here! Move along, mone along.

    Aileen Wuornos
    Female killer preyed upon truck drivers. New chapter by Sue Russell, author of Lethal Intent, sheds new light on the female serial killer.

    Andrea Yates
    Woman drowns her five children — one at a time after her husband goes to work. Is she psychotic or a monster? Incorrect expert testimony causes murder convictions to be overturned.

    Angels of Death — The Female Nurses
    Nurses continue to murder their patients. Dr. Katherine Ramsland examines the motives and some high-profile and recent cases.
  • ||

    Oh, and clearly it's not just angry young men that are a threat. It's REESE WITHERSPOON!

    http://amradaronline.files.wor.....oc-red.pdf

    Best part of the arrest report "I told her to sit on her butt and be quiet"

    You do NOT tell Reese Witherspoon to sIT ON HER BUTT AND BE QUIET. SHE's REESE WITHERSPOON DAMMIT!!!

    Not nearly a Mel Gibson level of awesomeness, but still amusing

    Alcohol is a hell of a drug!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement