tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post6089910708241261347..comments2024-03-28T18:35:54.237+09:00Comments on BigHominid's Hairy Chasms: Cho, the responsibleKevin Kimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-77627647910798659002007-04-22T02:34:00.000+09:002007-04-22T02:34:00.000+09:00It matters because some folks are going to look at...It matters because some folks are going to look at the evidence for Cho's insanity and try to absolve him of guilt. Because nature abhors a vacuum, it will not be enough for such people to leave the situation alone: they will want to assign guilt elsewhere, so the debate will rapidly switch over to "Where Did We Fail in This?" mode. That's when I'll be antsy, because I think it's important to remember that we (i.e., society or some fuzzy, Foucaultian notion of power dynamics) didn't fail Cho. He failed himself, and the killings weren't inevitable.<BR/><BR/>Aside from that, I agree: it's kinda too late to say or do anything more. It's just a matter of moving on. That's easier for me than for two of my friends: unlike them, I don't have any intimate ties to VA Tech.<BR/><BR/>So my basic motivation in writing this piece was to speak out against what I know is coming.<BR/><BR/><BR/>KevinKevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-46132929674635681602007-04-22T00:32:00.000+09:002007-04-22T00:32:00.000+09:00Don't take this the wrong way--it's a genuine ques...Don't take this the wrong way--it's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. But I'm wondering why it would matter to decide whether or not Cho is morally responsible for his actions. Regardless, he's beyond human action now. Or is the point that we should not hold anyone else responsible, perhaps for the purpose of justifying some kind of action, whether retributive or policy change? Or is there some other point to such an analysis? And if so, what?<BR/><BR/>Again, these are genuine questions. What happened, happened. We can't punish Cho, we can't rehabilitate Cho, we can't intervene with him in any way. And yet we (a vague, inclusive, editorial-type "we") think and talk about things like this: was he responsible? Is he accountable in some way? Is the exploration of such questions--can it be--more than an expression of feelings, satisfying a need to gain some sense of control by making sense of things, or some kind of abstract philosophical question? Is there a "so what" to follow? And if so, what might that be?<BR/><BR/>Me, I don't know. But I think it's worth thinking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com