Mar 312009
I decided to delete the contents of this post because in the end I realised I was only pandering to the desperate cravings of one individual for attention.
That's not what I'm here for.
Comments closed
57 Responses to “The New Authoritarianism”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
As I mentioned on the street the other day, I recognised your post as a neutral article designed to provoke reactions from the over-sensitive.
I'm still surprised by the level of debate and eventual name-calling this produced. Everyone seems to have read their own interpretation into the piece and come out the other side with a random 'counter-argument' (to what?).
You should do another one.
Oh I will. For sure.
We ended up with a bunch of people ranting about things I didn't say.
They were plainly screaming at their own demons, and God knows, poor old Gimme has more demons than most of us.
"We ended up with a bunch of people ranting about things I didn’t say."
See bock, by your own admission, I can't distinguish between you saying something (that may or may not be untrue) or you just being "tactical"
Listen. This particular post is personal. So if you want to play stupid games with this post, you can fuck off too.
It's up to you.
Respect my space on this. It's too serious.
Bock you really ought not let sad little people get to you. They are consumed with envy. Because their sad little sites get neither hits nor comments. I did not feel qualified to comment on the Bourke case one way or the other. Indeed some of the contributors I feel should have taken a similar view.
Bock; I had'nt read your blog since yesterday, Wow what a shit storm "
Yes, it is very very serious, but you put forward a very relevant question, which illicited very strong responses, and that has to be a good thing.
It is your blog, therefore you can ask whatever question you want.
I think a lot of responses arise on this and possibly other blog sites because its pretty much a lone exercise, you read something, and reactions are sometimes very spontaneous, maybe we need to re read before responding.
I fail completly to see why anybody would level an accusation of "Misogny" at you.
Your question was regarding "mental process" and the tragic outcome.
There are few enough thought provoking journalists out there, you are needed to make us think and evaluate.
The combination of "affair" and "murder" is extremly volatile and would have to provoke extreme reaction.
My own thoughts are that nobody is "driven into the arms of another man/woman" even though our basic nature may drive us toward love and nurture, we have to become liars to have an affair outside of an existing relationship, for the mere reality is that it cannot be conducted with honesty, it can be justified but only with lies, therefore apart from the hurt and devastation it can cause the biggest hurt is to the person themselves, because they have to behave contra to their own reality.
There is nothing to be gained from judging a person who embarks on this course because the only way they can come back to their own reality is to judge themselves.
I can't see where anyone intimated that it was remotely understandable for David Bourke to take the course he did, hearing the outcome of the trial on the news last night I was delighted justice was served, I say that in the full cognicense that no emotion is attatched to law.
I have certainly taken from your many post's that you are a strong respecter of women and of men, your view's may be controversial to some, and I don't always agree with you, but in this case I respect your mindful curiosity and the delicacy of your approach, you will always have your detractors and that means its working.
There's one person who is more vocal about there anti male views in your comments section and christ on a bike does shoe has a superiority complex i'll leave you guess who bock! Jesus she's going to accuse me of all sorts after that comment. Keep up those thought provoking posts.
Gary — The whole point about this site is to be honest, and that includes when I get pissed off by somebody who wants to project his own insecurities onto me.
I get angry when some fool generalises about things that concern my important relationships, but I'll be better before the day is out.
"Oh, I left it on Bock's page too, but without the link. His confused minions were turning up in their droves on my page after that!
Andrew.
Here is one confused minion that shall not be adding to this shits stats
There's no evidence of anybody turning up on Andrew's pages. I don't know what he's trying to say. Never heard of him till he left a one-line comment here which everybody ignored.
I read the linked blog and found it amusing/sad how such a group of seemingly intelligent (at least articulate) individuals could avoid all discussion of the issues, both of the murder itself and your original question, and descend into personal attacks. I thought the original question was quite thought provoking and led to very interesting conversations amongst my friends and I. I read a variety of opinion sites and blogs and have to say Bock is nearly always the most current and interesting. I certainly see no hint of of him mysogynist. Kudos to you Bock and keep up the excellent work.
Dearie me.
Did you read my post? Or the comments? Or did you just scan through looking for the words beginning with 'misogy' that you could then gleefully apply to yourself?
Every use of the scary 'm' word on my part, with a single exception, refers to the twat (and other twats) who blamed the victim. My post is not to do with the case. My post is to do with the futility of arguing with idiots.
But to that single exception. I referred to your original post, not to you, as 'an incitement to misogyny'. On reflection 'invitation to misogyny' might have been more accurate, but you know me Bock, when have i ever used a word when there's a more hyperbolic one available?
I believe the tone, and indeed the structure, of your post invited comments which sought not to explain the mindset of the perpetrator but to heap blame upon the victim. Your tacit agreement with Darwin's statement that the post was 'designed to provoke reactions from the over-sensitive' appears to me to bear this out.
I didn't call you a misogynist. In fact, I didn't call you any names. I certainly didn't so much as mention your daughter, whom I am sure you have never stabbed. I am therefore slightly baffled by your twenty-four hour shit fit.
Shit fit or no, I can totally understand Bock's pain here. There's nothing worse than feeling like you've been painted something contrary to your most deeply-held beliefs because of a misunderstanding or a knee-jerk reaction.
I certainly saw nothing wrong with Bock's original post, but then again I am the kind of knobhead who spends most of her time playing the apologist for gangster skangers.
Invitation to misogyny my arse. What I've seen coming out of this is hypocritical condemnation reminiscent of the worst days of priest-ridden Catholic Ireland.
They haven't gone away, it seems, but simply changed their clothes.
Trouble with this blogosphere BOCK is that it's so easy to put up any old scutter of a word. All you need is a finger and the keyboard etc.
The owner of the finger doesn't actually require any great thought ability.
None!
It's akin to spam, only really stupid.
What? No, really, what are you talking about?
I've explained my viewpoint calmly and rationally, clarified that I have not described you as misogynist and on top of all the unreciprocated insults you've been hurling in my direction, you're calling me a priest?
You go too far, sir.
Bock, the insight into the murderer's state of mind that you offered was to suggest that he had been all but tortured by the callous behaviour of his wife.
"My own view is that, while the killing was brutal and appalling, the wife’s treatment of him was callous to the point of contempt and amounted to something like torture. Although that doesn’t excuse what he did, I think it gives us some insight into the state of mind he ended up in."
Did you really expect all the reaction to be favourable?
Gimme —
To quote you: The post sought, and received, comments that blamed the victim. Such as the one quoted.
And it's not the first time.
What did you mean by saying that my post sought comments that blamed the victim?
What did you mean by saying?
Inkwit — As I have said many times, it's one thing to describe his state of mind and another thiong to excuse his actions. People seem to think that I condone what he did simply because I describe what I think he experienced, and they're wrong.
And he was tortured by his wife's behaviour. There's no way around that, unpalatable though it me be to people. However, he absolutely did not have the right to commmit murder as a result.
What did you mean by saying that my post sought comments that blamed the victim?
I meant exactly what I wrote three hours ago:
I believe the tone, and indeed the structure, of your post invited comments which sought not to explain the mindset of the perpetrator but to heap blame upon the victim. Your tacit agreement with Darwin’s statement that the post was ‘designed to provoke reactions from the over-sensitive’ appears to me to bear this out.
What did you mean by saying 'it's not the first time?'
That was certainly badly phrased. I did not mean to suggest that you have sought responses that have blamed the victim before, but to point out that you're always pulling this shit where you ask the seemingly innocent question which then allows The Bockolytes to go at it. If you have opinions you should state them and not have your commenters do it for you.
I like this, it feels almost like reasoned debate, but as I'm the one who has been insulted repeatedly and without justification, until you feel able to unsling the mud I'm going to have to leave it there.
There are many subjects which invite controversy, its a bit like saying "kids give meaning to your life" I always find that one draws them out of the woodwork in hoards, because it's so simple, yet some people will view it as "people without kids have no meaning to their life" which of course is not at all the content.
Some people enjoy a complex view of the world and all it has to offer, other's insist on a compartmentalised existence which just supports their own views.
"generals plan wars, foot soldiers carry out those plans" for what its worth.
-Gimme
If you have opinions you should state them and not have your commenters do it for you.
Try reading your own post. But then I don't think the people who commented on your post were trying state your opinion, but their own. As do the commenters here (for the most part).
" My post is not to do with the case. My post is to do with the futility of arguing with idiots."
Yet here you are.
I'd say old Johnny Waters is having a fap attack.
gimme; "your seemingly innocent question" implies that there existed an agenda devoid of sincerity, I completly fail to see the conspiracy, it is irrelevant whether there was or was'nt "innocence" attatched to the question.
We have a curious manner in this country of wiping out the deeds of the dead, regardless of the manner in which they succumb to the process.
I fervently hope that when I die, those people who may think i'm a cunt continue to think just that and that my departure in a physical sense does'nt change their view, if i decide to go live in mongolia and they never see me again, they will still call me a cunt, but if i die they might think i'm not so bad…..hope not.
The case of this subject showed a painful and traumatic path, which people battling may have fought and lost.
Nobody blames the victim or condones the horrific act of murder, people simply tried to understand the roles played and the horrific outcome, wheres the complication ?
Isn'nt it just too easy to focus on word play and blame the person who did nothing only ask a question which was out there to be asked ?
"where you ask the seemingly innocent question which then allows The Bockolytes to go at it"
–Gimme
There you go — trying to be condescending again. Most well-read blogs have their regular readers, many of whom become regular commenters. I'm sure you have them yourself. If they're "Bockolytes" here, what do you call them on your blog??
You're the one who used the phrase, "invitation to misogyny" which probably seemed 'smart' to you, but was wrong and insulting, and upsetting for Bock. Had you thought for two seconds before you wrote it, you *might* not have used it. Then again you might. I've only read a certain amount of your blog and it seems to be an exercise in "slick" by someone who says they're embarrassed to be Irish. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I (believe I) read last night.
Moving to Twenty for a moment:
What sort of comments was Twenty "inviting" on the post at this link below? But more to the point, what comments did he seem to enjoy and provoke? I see no attempt whatsoever to rein them in, disgusting as they were.
http://tinyurl.com/c3qkna
It looks like Twenty got what he wanted – fake tabloid headlines and all.
But he comes over here and starts preaching?
FYI – both of you – I did not read Bock's original post as seeking to "heap blame upon the victim". I read it more as, "Why do some people, in these circumstances, descend into depression and perhaps self-harm, while others descend into rage and murder". Perhaps the difference is that I wasn't actively looking for fault — while you two were.
Gimme has accused Bock of intellectual dishonesty, as I take it, because he doesn't believe the stated purpose of the article (to investigate the "mental process that led to this crime"). He thinks that the real purpose was to lay bait for an argument about feminism.
Maybe a good first step would be to explore how convincing the stated purpose of the article is. Norma, you repeat the claim that Bock and the commenters sought to "understand" the murder.
A man murders his unfaithful wife. On the surface, it's not the classic profile of a motiveless crime.
I confess I didn't follow the case, but I am happy to accept Bock's outline of events. That outline didn't seem to suggest any unresolved questions of psychology. Quite the opposite.
What would you say was so hard to understand about this particular case, as Bock portrays it?
[Gimme, I don't mean to appoint myself as your vicar on earth here. Apologies if I'm misrepresenting your case. And I wish you would reconsider your abandonment of the thread: a discussion between yourself and Bock would be interesting.]
Feck, I forgot to tick the box. I think.
This is better than Coronation St.
Gimme —
What do you mean, tacit agreement with Darwin? Are you a mindreader?
If you accuse me of soliciting misogynistic statements, then that is an insult of the lowest order. You have also, by implication, accused me of bad faith. I told you repeatedly what the purpose of the post was, and you can either take my word for it or call me a liar. It's up to you.
You're projecting your own prejudices onto me and attacking me for things I neither did not said, but I notice that seems to be the modus operandi of a lot of people these days.
Inkwit; I never sought to understand the act of murder, I sought to understand the process leading to the act of murder. big difference.
From my first response I stated very clearly that murder occupied no grey area.
This is my point about re reading full context.
Normally Bock rants on about something that annoys him and he takes a position with which people then take issue. In this case he did no such thing–which I thought made his post a little bland and almost pointless.
My own comment at the top was also specifically designed to be 'neutral' on the argument (whatever the argument actually is). I believe the 'over-sensitive' from all camps have defined themselves by their reactions.
However, for st.leger.norma to claim that the post 'invited comments which sought not to explain the mindset of the perpetrator but to heap blame upon the victim' is an hilarious example of severe cognitive dissonance.
The post simply 'invited comments' end-of-story. Bock's expectations could only be guessed at, but if I had to guess I would propose that he was expecting comments of entirely the opposite opinion (i.e. defending the victim and castigating Bock)–which he duly got.
"However, for st.leger.norma to claim that the post ‘invited comments which sought not to explain the mindset of the perpetrator but to heap blame upon the victim’ is an hilarious example of severe cognitive dissonance."
Aren't you quoting Gimme there and not Norma?
Norma, I find your distinction mystifying. Surely "understanding the act of murder" means precisely "understanding the process leading to the act of murder". My question was hardly unclear.
Again, what was difficult to understand about the mental process that led to this murder? Why was it puzzling enough to need the kind of investigation that the article claimed to seek?
If we can establish that Bock's original post raised a genuine question, then Gimme's case that it was faux-naive rage-bait is severely weakened.
"There’s no evidence of anybody turning up on Andrew’s pages. I don’t know what he’s trying to say. Never heard of him till he left a one-line comment here which everybody ignored."
Bock, you've commented on my page several times. And linked to it once, which I thanked you for. So you are either lying, confused, or forgetful. I was simply making reference to a humorous post by David Mitchell here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/15/online-feedback-public-sector
It points out the utter futility of this kind of online slanging match. Plenty of people turned up on my blog through yours (I'd imagine your stats show that) after I left that comment, but I certainly wasn't looking for them to. Leaving provocative somments in an attempt to get a few curious hits is a sad way to go about things. Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to your readers as "minions" on Gimme's blog, but it's somewhat less offensive and more balanced than simply being called a 'shit'. No, Gary? Also less offensive than referring to a very independent thinker as a 'lapdog', I would think.
This argument has entered the realm of utterly stupid and highly personal, when there was no need for it to. I, for the record, don't completely agree with Gimme's assertion that your post was an "incitement to misogyny", but I think it's fair to say that there was a measurable quantity of that in some of the comments that followed. Which is not really your fault, Bock.
I disagree. Turn off your pre-assumptions and read them again.
Inkwit — I don't have to satisfy anyone regarding the validity of any question I ask. If we arrive at a point where we have to get our questions pre-approved, we'll truly be living in a police state.
I'm telling you now for a fact that I have raised a genuine question, and you can take my word for it or not. It's up to you.
Andrew — My apologies for forgetting who you were. That's what anger does sometimes.
Bock -correctly or otherwise I have formed the opinion that some of the “linked†contributors to your Blog simply need attention and “hitsâ€. Some of them seem to have a compulsive obsession disorder with your site and your other contributors. On a cursory visit to some of them, there sites are Bock, Bock ,Bock. In total contrast to there expressed opinions on your Blog. They are a dam site more opinionated and self obsessed than anyone else on this site. I am nobodies minion or sycophant . I suspect some of the “Blogmeisters†lust for same.
-Andrew
I was wondering what the hell you were on about. It's true that it's a nicely generic sentance.
Bock, of course I'm not demanding that your questions be pre-approved. I'm simply suggesting a simple way to refute Gimme's accusation that your post was a piece of mischievous pot-stirring.
'salright, Bock, I don't spend my time wondering if my blog is important to people. I wasn't trying to annoy anyone, maybe just confuse them slightly with a seemingly irrelevant comment, thereby lightening the mood. I get your anger, but you're way off the mark calling Gimme a lapdog or a toady. Of all the blogs I read, his is possibly the least inclined to sycophancy. Some (perfectly decent) blogs were born out of people hanging round on Twenty's comments section. Stranded on Gaia is not one of those. Slinging out insults will only reduce the credibility of the ideas you try to put forward.
Bock QED?
Andrew – perhaps you are mortal but your contributions are not. They shall live forever . “smart arsed†remarks will come back to bite you. “Nor all thy piety nor wit can cancel but a line nor all thy tears one line of itâ€
Omar
Darwin; Little wonder you found it bland, as it appears you were'nt actually reading it.
It was Gimme made the comment you refer to not I.
Thank you Nora for pointing that out
Inkwit; I don't have a week to clarify the "mystification" and there isn't any.
Act and process, not the same
Norma, I've asked a clear question twice now, and given the rationale each time. Your reasons for not adressing it are none of my business. I won't pursue it.
-Gary
I doubt if Andrew is the only one to have ever left a smart assed comment at one time or another (myself included) but it might have made more sense if he'd included a link. An attempt to lighten the discussion, even if it doesn't work, is still a well intentioned act.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
John Waters
Thank you, C'est la Craic.
Gary, you must be desperately disappointed by the fact that all this nonsense looks like it's fading out. So bored that you wish to pick a fight with me. Your needy pleas for attention from Bock seem to be falling on deaf ears and your attempts to needle me with vaguely threatening sounding quotes and observations are beyond creepy. It might be time to stop now.
Ah lads, lads. Come on. Please.
Andrew unlike some contributors I do not have a site, and I do not crave attention . Truce and Pax.
C’est la Craic the “let he who is without sin cast the first stone “ is I believe attributed to Jesus Christ .It seems (oddly enough) a mob had decided to stone a woman to death for being “unfaithful†On hearing this they all dropped their stones .
-Andrew
No worries, but if I might, I think one of the lessons offered by this whole debacle is that sometimes we can see what we want to see and read too much into things. Gary might have been a bit confrontational with you but discussions like this tend inevitbaly to divide opinion into opposing camps. I don't think Gary was being threatening and I know I thought myself that your comment on the other post seemed a bit odd without the link to explain it. A simple case of misunderstanding?
-Gary
I hope I don't sound like I'm think I can read your mind or know your opinion. The above is only my opinion.
Too long in the comment box again.
It was ment to be smart assed.
Not to worry my friend, all is well, the World still turns and we shall arise again.
It seems the boyfriend involved is a Buddhist. Perhaps he is looking forward to reincarnation as a cockroach or a Dung beetle?
I think I'm safe from accusations of misogyny in saying this: the boyfriend seems to be an absolute piece of shit slimeball.
'So what do you think was going on in the mind of a man who in June 2007 was an average Joe with three kids but by August had become a wife-killer?'
This is a loaded question which presumes and is not, as the author intended, asked in a flat style with no expressed opinion being offered (sic). Already you are assuming that he is an 'average joe'. Ok, he may lived an average life but he had a very extraordinary way of dealing with things – ultimately resulting in the killing of his wife.
I have no information that he was anything other than an average Joe before he committed the murder. If you have hard facts to the contrary, by all means bring them forward.
The hard facts are – he killed his wife! Nothing average about it really.
That's after the fact. I didn't ask about that.