It's hard to disagree with anything you write here, Yascha, but I'd like to comment on something you touched on late in your recent podcast discussion with Elizabeth Anderson that seems at least tangentially relevant to the issue of conspiracy theories as well as young white men committing gun crime, specifically the discussion of the problem of framing patriarchy and intersectionality in the very simplistic terms in which they so often are.
Obviously we do not yet know (and may never know) the shooter's motive, but his profile is all too familiar: misfit, oddball, socially isolated white boy. As a history teacher in a large, diverse suburban high school, I have spent more and more time in recent years trying (with mixed results) to "win back" white boys falling down dark internet rabbit holes of racist, Islamophobic and antisemitic conspiracy theories, misogyny, etc. Most of these boys of course do not end up as shooters (when I suspect that might be the case I go right to administration), but they do end up holding horrifying views that bode ill for the future of our polity.
What defies the typical "shooter" stereotype among most in this larger universe of white boys getting radicalized online is that most, though not all, of the latter (in my experience) are among my most intellectually curious, thoughtful and sensitive students. But, to use Professor Henderson's phraseology, they are not "alphas." Some have friends, even girlfriends, but none of them are part of the "popular" crowd. They are bright, but not "good at school" like the students who end up in your Ivy League courses. At 15 or 16 or 17, they feel (correctly) that they have something to offer the world, but feel they have been locked out of all the paths to success in their narrow world: They'll never be star athletes, or valedictorian, or one of the popular kids.
But, and this is how your discussion of patriarchy and privilege connects to this phenomenon of disaffected young white men committing atrocities with guns. They feel like the message we as a society (schools, YA literature, "mainstream media") are sending them is that "You are privileged; you are the oppressor, you are the cause and beneficiary of all the world's injustices." The complexities of graduate level political theory are generally lost on a teenage boy who feels like the whole world is against him. The irony is these are the boys who actually care about issues of justice. The quarterback and the debate champion don't care if you throw their privilege in their face. They know their worth and are too busy to care.
Please note I am not in any way, shape, or form trying to blame this shooter's actions on "wokism" or anything similar. The shooter is responsible for his actions alone, and no matter what his motive, he has agency. The overwhelming majority of misfit boys don't commit atrocities. Again, we don't know what this young man's motive is. I am sharing this comment not so much to identify what motivates shooters - I have no expertise in criminal pathology - but more in terms of the educational vacuum creating a generation of disaffected young men open to believe conspiracy theories because we are no longer offering them an alternative narrative of Americanism that speak to them as powerfully as those of the conspiracy theorists, the White Nationalists, and the miraculously save man who will be their retribution.
Well-written and on point, but I think you may exaggerate the extent to which inbred Twitter-sphere fanatics speak for the country. Certainly the US contains plenty of irresponsible and potentially dangerous nutjobs, but it is easy to overestimate their numbers.
It's hard to disagree with anything you write here, Yascha, but I'd like to comment on something you touched on late in your recent podcast discussion with Elizabeth Anderson that seems at least tangentially relevant to the issue of conspiracy theories as well as young white men committing gun crime, specifically the discussion of the problem of framing patriarchy and intersectionality in the very simplistic terms in which they so often are.
Obviously we do not yet know (and may never know) the shooter's motive, but his profile is all too familiar: misfit, oddball, socially isolated white boy. As a history teacher in a large, diverse suburban high school, I have spent more and more time in recent years trying (with mixed results) to "win back" white boys falling down dark internet rabbit holes of racist, Islamophobic and antisemitic conspiracy theories, misogyny, etc. Most of these boys of course do not end up as shooters (when I suspect that might be the case I go right to administration), but they do end up holding horrifying views that bode ill for the future of our polity.
What defies the typical "shooter" stereotype among most in this larger universe of white boys getting radicalized online is that most, though not all, of the latter (in my experience) are among my most intellectually curious, thoughtful and sensitive students. But, to use Professor Henderson's phraseology, they are not "alphas." Some have friends, even girlfriends, but none of them are part of the "popular" crowd. They are bright, but not "good at school" like the students who end up in your Ivy League courses. At 15 or 16 or 17, they feel (correctly) that they have something to offer the world, but feel they have been locked out of all the paths to success in their narrow world: They'll never be star athletes, or valedictorian, or one of the popular kids.
But, and this is how your discussion of patriarchy and privilege connects to this phenomenon of disaffected young white men committing atrocities with guns. They feel like the message we as a society (schools, YA literature, "mainstream media") are sending them is that "You are privileged; you are the oppressor, you are the cause and beneficiary of all the world's injustices." The complexities of graduate level political theory are generally lost on a teenage boy who feels like the whole world is against him. The irony is these are the boys who actually care about issues of justice. The quarterback and the debate champion don't care if you throw their privilege in their face. They know their worth and are too busy to care.
Please note I am not in any way, shape, or form trying to blame this shooter's actions on "wokism" or anything similar. The shooter is responsible for his actions alone, and no matter what his motive, he has agency. The overwhelming majority of misfit boys don't commit atrocities. Again, we don't know what this young man's motive is. I am sharing this comment not so much to identify what motivates shooters - I have no expertise in criminal pathology - but more in terms of the educational vacuum creating a generation of disaffected young men open to believe conspiracy theories because we are no longer offering them an alternative narrative of Americanism that speak to them as powerfully as those of the conspiracy theorists, the White Nationalists, and the miraculously save man who will be their retribution.
Well-written and on point, but I think you may exaggerate the extent to which inbred Twitter-sphere fanatics speak for the country. Certainly the US contains plenty of irresponsible and potentially dangerous nutjobs, but it is easy to overestimate their numbers.