Discussion: A Look Inside Charleston Shooting Suspect Dylann Roof's Troubled Life

TPM Article Topics
41

Dylann Roof’s stepmother’s name was Paige Hastings until she married his father. Obviously, she has remarried and her new name is Paige Mann.

Mann had barely seen her former stepson since her nasty divorce. But last month, when she went to pick up her daughter at her ex-husband’s house, he was there.

According to Patricia Hastings, recounting recent conversations with her daughter, Roof was quieter than he used to be; he looked distant, lost. He was no longer the sweet blond kid she helped raise for nearly a decade. As she was getting ready to leave, Roof, not one for affection, hugged her tight.

Obviously, TPM needs an editor but that’s not a priority for Marshall, so you have to read carefully.

42

I’m not sure the goal of this article…sounds like he has problems just like millions of other people. None of which was so bad that makes us go “ohhhh! I see now why he did this!”. His misguided and petty disenchantment of African Americans, and the enabling lure of a gun, a coward’s go to weapon, to inflict as much damage as possible, from a cowardly distance, is at the core of this. Not his upbringing. TPM, was this article really necessary?

43

I awoke around 2am this morning from a dead sleep-- and, in unusual fashion my mind turned to this thread.
I hadn’t read any of the responses above (till just now), but had a sense of what my post above may have elicited in reply.

And I don’t wish to belittle the motives of those wishing to analyze Roof’s act’s-- or why he did so-- but to reinforce what this moment offers.

Life is chocked full of clichés.
Bromides-- that have stemmed from real events.
Most times applied with only some vague relativity to a situation-- meant to make a point salient.

Carpe diem.

We, as a society, are in that rare, slender slice of time-- where the moment can be seized for watershed effect.

By leaving Dylann Roof the racist killer– as an undiluted symbol?
You extend both his demographic characteristics (WASP, Southern, blonde, blue-eyed)-- coupled with the racial animus acquired through white supremecist influences-- as a blanket indictment of ‘Southern Heritage’ as an acceptable facade for institutional racism.

By not diluting the events with what appears to be a very shallow backstory-- and coupling the public’s perspective-- in linking the behavior of racists in our society to these hateful crimes-- serves to brand all racists as potential Dylann Roofs.

IMHO that is the strongest fashion of using this moment most efficiently-- to cripple white supremacy’s legitimacy.

Racism has backfired spectacularly in viral fashion.
We can use this event as a cudgel to effect good.
And we cannot afford curiosity to dilute or distract from this opportunity.

Selah.

jw1

44

Apparently this is your standard modus operandi: "The bail is for the firearms offense. On the murders, he’s being held without bail.

What else have y’all botched? I won’t seek to know; my reading stops here."

You could only make it through 3 paragraphs of the 50 or 60 paragraph AP article, and the first paragraph of my two paragraph comment. It seems you work hard to ensure that no actual information interferes with your ideologically pure view of the world. Very impressive.

2 Likes
45

Hilarious!

I read your comment. It did not, however, answer the question I asked. (No, I didn’t read the whole article, for the reasons stated.)

Let’s look at the evidence, shall we?
My original question to you:

And did the article begin to do that?

The question isn’t rhetorical: the saccharine tone and egregious factual error in support of that tone caused me to stop reading early on. Does the article attempt to find an explanation, or is it just turd word salad?

I know where my bet would be placed, but if you see any substance, do give us a precis. While awaiting your response, I think I’ll skip the bated breath, if you don’t mind. Or if you do.

What you claim had already answered my question:

Now this article isn’t particularly insightful and doesn’t give us much, but I don’t see a problem with the basic attempt to understand itself–as if understanding something about the actor’s motivation means that he is absolved of responsibility."

So what you had said was: that the article wasn’t particularly insightful, and didn’t give us much [much of what?], followed by your opinion about a general approach, and not the article itself— neither relevant nor material to the question.

And you contend that’s the answer to my question, viz., does the article attempt to find an explanation [for the killer’s behavior]. That the article wasn’t very insightful does not in the least answer the question of whether there was an attempt made at explaining Roof’s actions. If this were an exam, you’d score a big fat zero.

You haven’t a clue what my view of the world is, or of how much I read to form my opinions. All you know is that I don’t waste my time on crap as evidently worthless as the original article, and that I recognize your post, having read it, as drivel.

46

I COULD CARE LESS. Whatever this MONSTER’S life was about. There are people in this world with lives who’ve not been the greatest and yet they DON’T go around killing people. I hope they kill the bastard

47

Roof’s background and state of mind should be noted, not to justify his act, but merely to understand. Realizing that his life was a failure with little prospect for change if he continued on his current trajectory, he latched onto a movement that satisfied two needs. One, it propounded a view that Roof construed as important and larger than himself, and two, it propounded a view that explained why his country is less than it should be, and by being less, was in part responsible for his own failure living inside it. Such motivation drove young Germans to Nazism, young Italians to Fascism, and young Russians to Communism. As economic conditions in the south continue to deteriorate, thanks to policies pushed by the political party that southern whites insist will save them, I anticipate more incidents like this one.

6 Likes
48

Look I don’t like to waste my time trading insults over the internet with strangers. The issue here is really very simple. Look back at my original comment, a comment I’m still not certain that you have read in its entirety. I was not making some general pronouncement, but rather specifically responding to meangreen’s comment (as I already stated in my initial response to you). Meangreen, in turn, (and you can look back at that comment too) was not talking about the details of the AP article, but implying that any attempt to understand Roof’s background is “suppose[d] to excuse this racist mass murder’s [sic] behavior.”

It is this general line of thought that I am criticizing (as might possibly be indicated by the fact that I begin by saying “I never get this line of thought”). Notice, then, the next line of my comment: “Why should saying something about this guy’s background–a few tidbits which don’t even pretend to rise to the level of an explanation–be seen as an attempt to excuse his actions?” “A few tidbits which don’t even pretend to rise to the level of an explanation”–my first characterization of the AP article’s explanatory value. Is the meaning of that somehow unclear?

And I repeat my view of the explanatory worth of the article at the beginning of the next comment: “Now this article isn’t particularly insightful and doesn’t give us much, but I don’t see a problem with the basic attempt to understand itself–as if understanding something about the actor’s motivation means that he is absolved of responsibility.” Again, it is made clear that the article is weak, but that the details of the article do not constitute my focus, any more than it constituted meangrean’s focus. Rather the concern is with the philosophical claim that understanding human action is in tension with holding agents morally responsible.

You then (initially) responded to me: “The question isn’t rhetorical: the saccharine tone and egregious factual error in support of that tone caused me to stop reading early on. Does the article attempt to find an explanation, or is it just turd word salad?” OK, people often read quickly and misunderstand each other in these forums; it seemed enough for me to reference one of the instances where I dismissed the article and to reiterate that my concern was only with the larger question of understanding vs. responsibility. But that you would then read that comment, presumably re-read my initial comment and STILL imagine that your question had not been addressed is baffling to me. Presumably now you will see the point.

49

Knowing his upbringing with obvious parental neglect does not excuse him or make it right. It does explain it and as a cultutre we can look for and hopefully find ways to help other children in a situation like his.
There were courts involved in 2 divorces but nowhere in that process was the child’s welfare an issue. His stepmother seemed to care and be concerned but her contact could not be legally extended. The father’s troubling life and abusive treatment of his wives and total neglect Of his children is most troubling. Let’s put the responsiblity where it belongs.

1 Like
50

All well and good, but it doesn’t excuse the tenor of the article.

1 Like
51

I simply asked whether the article in fact offered attempts to explain. You acted like I was attacking you. How prescient of you, because your subsequent responses have been worthy of attack. You may now insert the last word, or a thousand. All the same to me.

52

Who cares how you think I acted? You made a criticism and I answered twice, clearly. If you think my subsequent responses are also worthy of attack then make that attack. Saying that you could attack but won’t is not very convincing (I’ve been a philosophy professor long enough to be able to recognize BS responses when I see them).

53

The

54

I don’t see that at all. I see an article that is raising the question of how dylann came to be a racist mass murderer rather than answering it. We see that dylann had a difficult life, but difficult in ways that are very common.

I also see an article that raises the questions: can we spot the dylanns from among the much, much larger population of troubled/loner/disaffected youths before they have made the decision to commit violent acts; and can we do anything about the dylanns if we do spot them?

5 Likes
55

So he’s mentally ill and not a thug?
I don’t give two shits what this kid’s home life was like.

56

What childish nonsense. You’re really not interested in trying to stop this kind of thing, are you? The outrage is just too addictive.

1 Like
57

This kid is bat shit crazy by any medical measure.
He is sane by the legal definition of sanity: He knows what he did is wrong.

So the state will look to kill him for political and PR purposes.

The most practical – and cheapest route – for the taxpayer would be to allow him to cop a plea, then entomb him for life.

But that won’t happen. Gotta put on a show, don’t ya know so the bereaved can have “closure”.

I’ve buried a trainload of trainload of loved ones including siblings and a wife of 37 years. Ain’t no such thing as closure.

2 Likes
58

I see the negative reaction to this as more how we do it to white criminals like we need to look for the reasons they went off the rails. In a way it seems to get us to feel empathy for the criminal, to make us understand why he might have done the things he did, not excuse them, but to explain how they could have happened.

When a black criminal does it the whole community gets bashed, bad music, bad parenting, etc. If he had a single mom it’s because BLACK people don’t value a stable family.

I imagine it gets old.

59

It’s an AP article, not TPM that might need the editor on this one.

60

I’m with you all the way, GR.

@AnnieW : I see the negative reaction to this as more how we do it to white criminals like we need to look for the reasons they went off the rails.

Sure seems to be the pattern.

Good posts.