Zločini u OŠ Vladislav Ribnikar i Mladenovcu

Hegel's fundamental rule is that "objective" excess (the direct reign of abstract universality which imposes its law "mechanically", with utter disregard for the concerned subject caught in its web) is always supplemented by the "subjective" excess (the irregular, arbitrary exercise of whims). An exemplary case of this interdependence is provided by Balibar, who distinguishes two opposite but complementary modes of excessive violence: the "ultra-objective" ("structural") violence that is inherent in the social conditions of global capitalism (the "automatic" creation of excluded and dispensable individuals, from the homeless to the unemployed), and the "ultra-subjective" violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious (in short: racist) "fundamentalisms." This "excessive" and "groundless" violence involves its own mode of knowledge, that of impotent cynical reflection - back to our example of Id-Evil, of a skinhead beating up foreigners: when really pressed for the reasons for his violence, and if capable of minimal theoretical reflection, he will suddenly start to talk like social workers, sociologists and social psychologists, quoting diminished social mobility, rising insecurity, the disintegration of paternal authority, the lack of maternal love in his early childhood... in short, he will provide a more or less precise psycho-sociological account of his acts so dear to enlightened liberals eager to "understand" the violent youth as a tragic victim of their social and familial conditions. The standard enlightened formula of the efficiency of the "critique of ideology" from Plato onwards ("they are doing it, because they do not know what they are doing," i.e. knowledge is in itself liberating, when the erring subject reflects upon what he is doing, he will no longer be doing it) is here turned around: the violent skinhead "knows very well what he is doing, but he is nonetheless doing it." The symbolically efficient knowledge embedded in the subject's effective social praxis disintegrates into, on the one hand, excessive "irrational" violence with no ideologico-political foundation and, on the other hand, impotent external reflection that leaves the subject's acts intact. In the guise of this cynicallly-impotent reflecting skinhead who, with an ironic smile, explains to the perplexed journalist the roots of his senselessly violent behavior, the enlightened tolerant multiculturalist bent on "understanding" forms of excessive violence gets his own message in its inverted, true form - in short, as Lacan would have put it, at this point, the communication between him and the "object" of his study, the intolerant skinhead, is thoroughly successful

boomer crook wrote:pa da. darien leader pise da je problem sto danas pacijenti znaju kako da predstave svoje simptme. svesni sta se d njih ocekuje u analizi i tako se ponasaju.

beatakeshi wrote:Da, kao da je odlučio da likvidira roditelje.

bemty wrote:

Erős Pista wrote:

Hegel's fundamental rule is that "objective" excess (the direct reign of abstract universality which imposes its law "mechanically", with utter disregard for the concerned subject caught in its web) is always supplemented by the "subjective" excess (the irregular, arbitrary exercise of whims). An exemplary case of this interdependence is provided by Balibar, who distinguishes two opposite but complementary modes of excessive violence: the "ultra-objective" ("structural") violence that is inherent in the social conditions of global capitalism (the "automatic" creation of excluded and dispensable individuals, from the homeless to the unemployed), and the "ultra-subjective" violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious (in short: racist) "fundamentalisms." This "excessive" and "groundless" violence involves its own mode of knowledge, that of impotent cynical reflection - back to our example of Id-Evil, of a skinhead beating up foreigners: when really pressed for the reasons for his violence, and if capable of minimal theoretical reflection, he will suddenly start to talk like social workers, sociologists and social psychologists, quoting diminished social mobility, rising insecurity, the disintegration of paternal authority, the lack of maternal love in his early childhood... in short, he will provide a more or less precise psycho-sociological account of his acts so dear to enlightened liberals eager to "understand" the violent youth as a tragic victim of their social and familial conditions. The standard enlightened formula of the efficiency of the "critique of ideology" from Plato onwards ("they are doing it, because they do not know what they are doing," i.e. knowledge is in itself liberating, when the erring subject reflects upon what he is doing, he will no longer be doing it) is here turned around: the violent skinhead "knows very well what he is doing, but he is nonetheless doing it." The symbolically efficient knowledge embedded in the subject's effective social praxis disintegrates into, on the one hand, excessive "irrational" violence with no ideologico-political foundation and, on the other hand, impotent external reflection that leaves the subject's acts intact. In the guise of this cynicallly-impotent reflecting skinhead who, with an ironic smile, explains to the perplexed journalist the roots of his senselessly violent behavior, the enlightened tolerant multiculturalist bent on "understanding" forms of excessive violence gets his own message in its inverted, true form - in short, as Lacan would have put it, at this point, the communication between him and the "object" of his study, the intolerant skinhead, is thoroughly successful

Erős Pista wrote:

Hegel's fundamental rule is that "objective" excess (the direct reign of abstract universality which imposes its law "mechanically", with utter disregard for the concerned subject caught in its web) is always supplemented by the "subjective" excess (the irregular, arbitrary exercise of whims). An exemplary case of this interdependence is provided by Balibar, who distinguishes two opposite but complementary modes of excessive violence: the "ultra-objective" ("structural") violence that is inherent in the social conditions of global capitalism (the "automatic" creation of excluded and dispensable individuals, from the homeless to the unemployed), and the "ultra-subjective" violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious (in short: racist) "fundamentalisms." This "excessive" and "groundless" violence involves its own mode of knowledge, that of impotent cynical reflection - back to our example of Id-Evil, of a skinhead beating up foreigners: when really pressed for the reasons for his violence, and if capable of minimal theoretical reflection, he will suddenly start to talk like social workers, sociologists and social psychologists, quoting diminished social mobility, rising insecurity, the disintegration of paternal authority, the lack of maternal love in his early childhood... in short, he will provide a more or less precise psycho-sociological account of his acts so dear to enlightened liberals eager to "understand" the violent youth as a tragic victim of their social and familial conditions. The standard enlightened formula of the efficiency of the "critique of ideology" from Plato onwards ("they are doing it, because they do not know what they are doing," i.e. knowledge is in itself liberating, when the erring subject reflects upon what he is doing, he will no longer be doing it) is here turned around: the violent skinhead "knows very well what he is doing, but he is nonetheless doing it." The symbolically efficient knowledge embedded in the subject's effective social praxis disintegrates into, on the one hand, excessive "irrational" violence with no ideologico-political foundation and, on the other hand, impotent external reflection that leaves the subject's acts intact. In the guise of this cynicallly-impotent reflecting skinhead who, with an ironic smile, explains to the perplexed journalist the roots of his senselessly violent behavior, the enlightened tolerant multiculturalist bent on "understanding" forms of excessive violence gets his own message in its inverted, true form - in short, as Lacan would have put it, at this point, the communication between him and the "object" of his study, the intolerant skinhead, is thoroughly successful

bemty wrote:

bemty wrote:razmisljam, ako je mali u terapiji, normalno je da se prvo temeljno provede vreme na raznim uticajima na njega, da kroz sopstveni primer uoci i apsorbuje koliko drugi ljudi uticu na nas, da pocne da razvija dubinsku empatiju prema sebi ne bi li u nekoj kasnijoj fazi poceo da to okrece i prema drugima. sto je u totalnom raskoraku sa sudskim procesom, koji verovatno najvise procenjuje, pored krivice, stepen rizika za ponavljanje prekrsaja. 'majka je htela da u svemu budem najbolji pa sam zato pobio pola razreda' u tom kontekstu je kao da vristi zatvorite me zauvek. (znam, znam, nije sudjenje njemu, samo pratim inicijalni tok misli kad nisam znala taj detalj)

čika Condor wrote:

[size=44]Viši sud u Beogradu produžio je za još tri meseca produžio je meru zabrane prilaska, sastajanja i komunikacije Miljani Kecmanović sa svojim sinom, maloletnim ubicom, koji je 3. maja prošle godine u OŠ "Vladislav Ribnikar" ubio devet vršnjaka i čuvara škole.[/size]

Zanima me pravni osnov ovoga? Pretpostavljam da je dečak-ubica ovde tretiran kao svedok u procesu protiv svoje majke, ali zar ovo takođe ne predstavlja samo po sebi uticaj na svedoka, ovog puta od strane države? Zašto se uopšte tretira kao svedok kada je po definiciji u konfliktu interesa?

boomer crook wrote:

bemty wrote:razmisljam, ako je mali u terapiji, normalno je da se prvo temeljno provede vreme na raznim uticajima na njega, da kroz sopstveni primer uoci i apsorbuje koliko drugi ljudi uticu na nas, da pocne da razvija dubinsku empatiju prema sebi ne bi li u nekoj kasnijoj fazi poceo da to okrece i prema drugima. sto je u totalnom raskoraku sa sudskim procesom, koji verovatno najvise procenjuje, pored krivice, stepen rizika za ponavljanje prekrsaja. 'majka je htela da u svemu budem najbolji pa sam zato pobio pola razreda' u tom kontekstu je kao da vristi zatvorite me zauvek. (znam, znam, nije sudjenje njemu, samo pratim inicijalni tok misli kad nisam znala taj detalj)

tesko je da se covek ne navuce na nagadjanje (koje je u mom slucaju i pride amatersko) ali mislim da uopste niije slucajno sto su zrtve gotovo iskljucivo devojcice.

MNE wrote:

boomer crook wrote:

tesko je da se covek ne navuce na nagadjanje (koje je u mom slucaju i pride amatersko) ali mislim da uopste niije slucajno sto su zrtve gotovo iskljucivo devojcice.

jedna djevojčica je izjavila da je nanišao pa je sklonio nišan sa nje, valjda zato što ga nije zadirkivala pretraži naći ćeš izjavu

boomer crook wrote:nesrazmera je takva da ne moze biti slucajna. a o zlim devojcicama koje diraju psihopatu koji ih onda pobije zaista ne bih. 

mislim da niste svesni sta su ocekivanja gomile deckica danas od zenskog sveta i kakve ideje maskuliniteta im se muvaju po glavi. ovo ima veze sa ribnikarom samo utoliko sto devojcice iz vise srednje klase i dalje mogu da imaju drugacije aspiracione modele. 

da ne ulazim u to da se ne izlazem zdravorazumizmu. nisam danas in the mood.

boomer crook wrote:pa da. darien leader pise da je problem sto danas pacijenti znaju kako da predstave svoje simptme. svesni sta se d njih ocekuje u analizi i tako se ponasaju.