Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Mass stabbing at Southport Kids’ Club 29/7/24

There's zero point speculating and forming theories based on fuck all. But associating this act with other acts that clearly were done within some political framework is playing into the hands of those who wish to give this act wider significance. Given the state of our ignorance right now, that is both a foolish and a dangerous thing to do.

Agreed. But the speculation that does seem to be acceptable here is that it was motivated by misogyny, which at this point is equally unknowable. It's just as likely that he's chosen the softest possible, target rich event, that's going to cause the maximum amount of social turbulence and distress.
 
To you maybe. I don't think it is. And you did miss KT's point. That much is clear.
Obvs you don't think it is or you wouldn't have served up such a dog's dinner of a post. Give it a moment's thought and perhaps - perhaps - you might see why. For example, the strategic decisions made on provision of mh services are made by ministers, at the highest level. So unless you're saying that the nhs and nhs funding are apolitical matters political elements are clearly at play here. Are second and third level effects of political decisions not themselves political? And do you need to be motivated by a political ideology for your acts to be political? I'm with skunk anansie that everything's political. Your view, I repeat,has no obvious basis, no argument that you're prepared to submit to support it.
 
Agreed. But the speculation that does seem to be acceptable here is that it was motivated by misogyny, which at this point is equally unknowable. It's just as likely that he's chosen the softest possible, target rich event, that's going to cause the maximum amount of social turbulence and distress.
I agree there is no evidence of misogyny, it is probably the mostly likely ideological factor but we don't have any evidence for it at the moment. And it does not feel quite right, these sort of attacks don't normally target girls this young.
 
Agreed. But the speculation that does seem to be acceptable here is that it was motivated by misogyny, which at this point is equally unknowable. It's just as likely that he's chosen the softest possible, target rich event, that's going to cause the maximum amount of social turbulence and distress.
There are many Miss Marple's on this thread.
 
Whether or not it was 'motivated by misogyny', it is absolutely an example of misogynystic violence. We don't need to know his motivations to see the target and outcome of his actions. This links very bleakly in with the Violence against Women and Girls thread, both the initial violent action by a man and the subsequent violent response (largely by men).
 
I agree there is no evidence of misogyny, it is probably the mostly likely ideological factor but we don't have any evidence for it at the moment. And it does not feel quite right, these sort of attacks don't normally target girls this young.

Not feeling quite right due to how extreme it was doesnt really offer me a guide, since there will always be examples that go beyond what we've come to view as more normal/widespread examples of the phenomenon. Something happening at the very extreme cannot in itself rule out particular motivations, and will often end up being shown to be down to additional factors beyond the core ideological factors, that end up acting as a multiplier of the horrific nature of the act.
 
Whether or not it was 'motivated by misogyny', it is absolutely an example of misogynystic violence. We don't need to know his motivations to see the target and outcome of his actions. This links very bleakly in with the Violence against Women and Girls thread, both the initial violent action by a man and the subsequent violent response (largely by men).
Not really, as previously suggested the easiest of targets was chosen.
 
Not feeling quite right due to how extreme it was doesnt really offer me a guide, since there will always be examples that go beyond what we've come to view as more normal/widespread examples of the phenomenon. Something happening at the very extreme cannot in itself rule out particular motivations, and will often end up being shown to be down to additional factors beyond the core ideological factors, that end up acting as a multiplier of the horrific act.
It is the age not the extreme nature of it that gives me pause in just labeling it as misogynistic. It could be, but if it is it is just as likely to motivated by some bizzare obsession with Swift.

Or It could just be he wanted to cause as much distress as possible and this was the target he found. We don't really have a clue.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not it was 'motivated by misogyny', it is absolutely an example of misogynystic violence. We don't need to know his motivations to see the target and outcome of his actions. This links very bleakly in with the Violence against Women and Girls thread, both the initial violent action by a man and the subsequent violent response (largely by men).
I'm not sure about this.

What the violence against women thread is about to me is the everyday normalised violence againt women and girls by otherwise normal men. In particular by men known to their victims. This is an abnormal act of violence by a man who is clearly not normal.

The perception that the danger to women is mainly from strangers who are in someway abnormal is part of the problem. It locates the violence outside of society while ignoring the far greater violence inside society.
 
Because the bomber was a loner who had little contact with his family. It's not religion, it's background. And both targeted events popular with little girls.

Actually it was contact with his family that explains why Salman Abedi ( the Manchester bomber) had had experience of fighting in Libya as did his brother. His father was involved with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ( an al-Qaeda associated group) and all three were known to security services.
 
Actually it was contact with his family that explains why Salman Abedi ( the Manchester bomber) had had experience of fighting in Libya as did his brother. His father was involved with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ( an al-Qaeda associated group) and all three were known to security services.
And it was a suicide bombing that was clearly associated with a wider political cause. So far there are no parallels that we know of with this case.

On a general point, we should be suspicious of the term 'loner' as used in the press. It is a label that can be used simply on the basis that neighbours never spoke to the person and it is often misleading.
 
And it was a suicide bombing that was clearly associated with a wider political cause. So far there are no parallels that we know of with this case.

On a general point, we should be suspicious of the term 'loner' as used in the press. It is a label that can be used simply on the basis that neighbours never spoke to the person and it is often misleading.

If I was a perpetrator of a crime I'd be described as a loner. If I was a victim, I'd be a quiet man who kept himself to himself.

Language is loaded.
 
You failed to answer the questions. Not surprisingly, as you also have claimed that your own particular brand of bigotry isn't bigotry on other threads.

Anyway, carry on with your hot takes, there's little point in engaging with you.
Thank god for that.
 
Back
Top Bottom