KPforum
things we like
Elspeth
August 15, 2011 at 7:00: pm
We actually had a discussion about this (the origin of "evil") on the forum a while ago it was a topic called "Evil By Nature or Nurture?"
I'd post the link but links don't work in comments here (for some reason), will bump the topic up on the forum though, so it'll be near the top if you, or anyone else, wants to have a read or has anything to add :)
I've always believed that no child is born "evil", every soul when it's born is pure and uncorrupted. However, it was raised in the topic that a child's first instincts are to 'take' and look out for number 1, they never think about consequences etc, so perhaps a humanity's basic instincts are longer tolerated in society? We are no longer in cave-man times with animalistic societies.
I parents don't teach their children from a young age how to behave and act then they'll never change.
It's such a deep topic! I dunno, I still think we are all born pure, but need guidance from our parents (or other strong adult figures) to teach us the right way to behave.
I'd post the link but links don't work in comments here (for some reason), will bump the topic up on the forum though, so it'll be near the top if you, or anyone else, wants to have a read or has anything to add :)
I've always believed that no child is born "evil", every soul when it's born is pure and uncorrupted. However, it was raised in the topic that a child's first instincts are to 'take' and look out for number 1, they never think about consequences etc, so perhaps a humanity's basic instincts are longer tolerated in society? We are no longer in cave-man times with animalistic societies.
I parents don't teach their children from a young age how to behave and act then they'll never change.
It's such a deep topic! I dunno, I still think we are all born pure, but need guidance from our parents (or other strong adult figures) to teach us the right way to behave.
J
August 15, 2011 at 10:35: pm
First, Sorry I don't write English very well.
But I will try writing to communicate with you.
I think that parents, teacher or someone influences growing up children. Good things or bad things. But it is not perfect influence.
Most importantly, the child is influenced by external stimulation for their all life contiuously(If parents are 'internal'stimulation). For example, a child who has perfect perents(ofcourse, this is not present or usually many people think)can has a bad school teacher who hit the child. So, the child life can be changed. Although parents endeavor to making a perfect person, the child can't has a good inner. Opposite case is same.
"There is no one, influence to us perfectly. Not anywhere."
When someday, most people can have thinking about themselves as a third party. ego, self-reflection personality, life, influence and so on. And then they seek someone who they want to be resemble their ego, life and so on. And the person who is founded is at least a true influence to us.
Also, You said about 'evil'. Actually I don't know what is 'evil'. What is boundary line of evil?
(Sorry, my opinion has its limits because of my English ability)
But I will try writing to communicate with you.
I think that parents, teacher or someone influences growing up children. Good things or bad things. But it is not perfect influence.
Most importantly, the child is influenced by external stimulation for their all life contiuously(If parents are 'internal'stimulation). For example, a child who has perfect perents(ofcourse, this is not present or usually many people think)can has a bad school teacher who hit the child. So, the child life can be changed. Although parents endeavor to making a perfect person, the child can't has a good inner. Opposite case is same.
"There is no one, influence to us perfectly. Not anywhere."
When someday, most people can have thinking about themselves as a third party. ego, self-reflection personality, life, influence and so on. And then they seek someone who they want to be resemble their ego, life and so on. And the person who is founded is at least a true influence to us.
Also, You said about 'evil'. Actually I don't know what is 'evil'. What is boundary line of evil?
(Sorry, my opinion has its limits because of my English ability)
Yeye
August 15, 2011 at 11:07: pm
Equality, democracy, freedom and all these terms depend on the "possibilities" that society gives us of "enjoy" our rights. No "possibilities," people do not have the opportunity to "participate" in democracy or "being free" to choose a profession that you are passionate and like it so many other things. And there, in my view, lies the problem. The inability to choose our being and to choose to do, things makes us repressed society oppresses us. Frustrates us see how "others", the minority can enjoy the rights that are supposed to be for everyone. While some are able to go to college and others do not, the same society we put a gap between social sectors, increasingly becomes more distant the idea of equality. Those who manage to obtain loans or financing to go to college, finish his career with unsustainable debts and have to work their entire lives to pay them. The same society makes you that being a misfit, a repressed, frustrated, in addition to any manifestation of injustice, inequality reveals himself and joins any chance of hitting the most favored.
I do not think there really bad people. I think society makes them who they are, inequality, lack of opportunities, injustice, differences in general.
I do not think there really bad people. I think society makes them who they are, inequality, lack of opportunities, injustice, differences in general.
Danielle
August 16, 2011 at 2:00: am
I have to completely agree with you Kat. I grew up in a middle class family, my parents were high school sweethearts
Danielle
August 16, 2011 at 2:07: am
OK, i wrote a whole post, but I don't know why only 3 sentences showed from it :-(
Danielle
August 16, 2011 at 4:27: am
My posts still dont want to post my whole comment, anyone know why?
STEFANIE
August 16, 2011 at 9:47: am
First Libya, then Bahrain, Yemen, Syrian, Kordofan, then England. What's with the riots/wars? 2011 trend?
A Different Perspective
August 16, 2011 at 10:25: am
From Tottenham to Oakland
Planet of Slums, Age of Riots
By GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER
Tottenham, Chile, Tunis…
There are too many to count
Oakland, Brixton, Taybat al-Imam…
We almost can’t keep the names straight.
Clichy-sous-Bois, Caracas, Los Angeles…
The phrase “riot in London” echoed strangely in my ear, prompting only muted interest. I have been present for a few riots in London and in nearby Cambridge, marches against the war and the perennial Mayday battle between anarchists and the Metropolitan Police. From these to the more recent anti-cuts marches which ended in sporadic clashes with police, my interest has gradually waned, and when I most recently heard this phrase “riot in London,” I expected it would be followed by yet another description of a ritualized protest, with some marchers “kettled” and some anarchists fighting police. This is not simply a criticism: I was not not excited, but I was certainly not excited either.
Instead, the details began to emerge: the immediate spark was the police murder of a Black man, Mark Duggan, who was shot to death by police, and the beating of a 16-year old woman demanding answers from police about Duggan’s death. The fuel for the fire had been long accumulating, however: institutionalized racism in the form of poverty, police stop-and-search methods, and more recent Conservative Party cutbacks in the name of “austerity,” this year’s chosen catchword if “revolution” doesn’t eclipse it entirely.
The similarities with other serious waves of social rebellion then began to emerge with increasing clarity. This was both about Mark Duggan and it was not (here we can agree with the British Prime Minister David Cameron, albeit toward the opposite end), just as the recent rebellions in Oakland in 2009 were both about more than Oscar Grant, just as 2008 Athens was about more than Alexandros Grigoropoulos, 1992 L.A. was about more than Rodney King, the 1965 Watts Rebellion about more than Marquette Frye, and so on. And like these previous moments, the London rebellions are spreading with a degree of spontaneity and a flexibility of organizational forms that has left police utterly confounded. There have already been more than 1,000 arrests, and as hysterical media outlets up the rhetorical ante with talk of “guerrilla warfare,” the police are gearing up for far more.
Mob Hysteria
When economic violence reaches a certain point, social counter-violence soon follows, and yet it is rarely the bankers or the politicians, the purveyors of global austerity measures, who bear the brunt. It begins with name-calling, and no name has more political and historical resonance than “the mob,” the most traditional of slurs. From Philadelphia to London, we are told, the specter of the mob looms, and to the image of the “baying mob,” that keystone of journalistic integrity The Sun has also added the image of the “trouble-making rabble.”
Irrational, uncontrollable, impermeable to logic and unpredictable in its movements, these undesirables have once again ruined the party for everyone, as they have done from Paris 1789 to Caracas 1989. In Fanon’s inimitable words: “the masses, without waiting for the chairs to be placed around the negotiating table, take matters into their own hands and start burning…”
To use the word “mob” is a fundamentally political gesture. It is an effort by governing elites and conservative forces to delegitimize and denigrate popular resistance, to empty it of all political content by drawing a line of rationality in the sand. To make demands is reasonable, but since “the mob” is the embodiment of unreason, it cannot possibly make demands. Never mind the very clearly political motivations that sparked the rebellions around London, as well as the growing and equally political concerns about economic inequality and racist policing: these have been well documented, no matter how little many Britons want to hear it.
But I want to address directly the idea that the riots are fundamentally irrational, as the smear of “the mob” would symbolically insist. Let’s listen closely, let’s block out the torrent of media denunciation and hear what the rebels are saying themselves:
Argument 1: Nothing Else Has Worked, This Might.
When ITV asked one young rebel what, if anything, rioting would achieve, his response was as matter-of-fact as it was profound:
“You wouldn’t be talking to me now if we didn’t riot, would you?... Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you.”
As another put it: “you can’t do nothing that’s normal for it to happen right.” In other words, legitimate discontent has not been heard through official channels, and so those suffering turn to unofficial ones. If someone has an effective counter-argument to this, I’m all ears. This is not to suggest that the rebellions have a singular logic shared by every participant, but that there is logic to be found nonetheless.
This isn’t the only time riots have worked, either: in 2009 Oakland, it was riots and only riots that led to the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of BART police officer Johannes Mehserle for the death of Oscar Grant. And this effectiveness extends to the tactical, while the left marches and is surrounded by police, these street rebels have proven far less susceptible to tactics like “kettling”: as The Guardian put it,
roaming groups of youths cannot be effectively kettled. And unlike activists they will often return to the site of trouble, seeking direct confrontation with police.The looters appear to have been more savvy. Large groups targeting shops have been melting into a nearby estate in seconds at the first sound of sirens arriving.
Argument 2: The Rich Can Do It, Why Can’t We?
Poor people aren’t stupid enough not to have noticed what’s been going on in the world around them. As capitalist crisis has set in a massive redistribution of wealth has taken place, with banks and investors bailed out at the expense of the population, effectively rewarding them for predatory behavior and leveraging national debt into economic growth. The rich line their profits as essential services and benefits are slashed, and faced with such obvious “looting,” we are somehow expected not to notice.
One onlooker to the London riots puts it precisely:
This is about youth not having a future… a lot of these people are unemployed, a lot of these people have their youth center closed down for years, and they’re basically seeing the normal things: the bankers getting away with what they’re getting away with… this is the youth actually saying to themselves, guess what? These people can get away with that, then how come we can’t tell people what we feel?
As one young female looter told The Sun, “We’re getting our taxes back,” and as another told The Guardian, “The politicians say that we loot and rob, they are the original gangsters.”
Argument 3: Locating the Riots.
Essential to the imagery of the irrational mob is the insistence that the bulk of the destruction is centered on working-class communities, and here the logic is fundamentally colonial. The poor and the Blacks can’t be trusted: look what they do to their own. Incapable of governing themselves, they must be taught civilization, by blows if necessary. Here again Oakland resonates, as after the riots there a solitary African braid shop, one of many whose windows were smashed, became the media symbol of the ‘irrationality’ of rioters hell-bent on destruction and nothing more. It is worth noting that the poor rarely “own” anything at all, even in their “own” communities.
To break this narrative, we must read the actions of the rebels as well as listening to their words. While working-class communities have indeed suffered damage (we should note that working-class communities always bear the brunt of upheaval), there has been less talk of more overtly political targeting: police stations burned to the ground, criminal courts windows smashed by those who had passed through them, and the tacitly political nature of youth streaming into neighboring areas to target luxury and chain stores. On just the first night, rioters in Tottenham Hale targeted “Boots, JD Sports, O2, Currys, Argos, Orange, PC World and Comet,” whereas some in nearby Wood Green ransacking the hulking HMV and H
Planet of Slums, Age of Riots
By GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER
Tottenham, Chile, Tunis…
There are too many to count
Oakland, Brixton, Taybat al-Imam…
We almost can’t keep the names straight.
Clichy-sous-Bois, Caracas, Los Angeles…
The phrase “riot in London” echoed strangely in my ear, prompting only muted interest. I have been present for a few riots in London and in nearby Cambridge, marches against the war and the perennial Mayday battle between anarchists and the Metropolitan Police. From these to the more recent anti-cuts marches which ended in sporadic clashes with police, my interest has gradually waned, and when I most recently heard this phrase “riot in London,” I expected it would be followed by yet another description of a ritualized protest, with some marchers “kettled” and some anarchists fighting police. This is not simply a criticism: I was not not excited, but I was certainly not excited either.
Instead, the details began to emerge: the immediate spark was the police murder of a Black man, Mark Duggan, who was shot to death by police, and the beating of a 16-year old woman demanding answers from police about Duggan’s death. The fuel for the fire had been long accumulating, however: institutionalized racism in the form of poverty, police stop-and-search methods, and more recent Conservative Party cutbacks in the name of “austerity,” this year’s chosen catchword if “revolution” doesn’t eclipse it entirely.
The similarities with other serious waves of social rebellion then began to emerge with increasing clarity. This was both about Mark Duggan and it was not (here we can agree with the British Prime Minister David Cameron, albeit toward the opposite end), just as the recent rebellions in Oakland in 2009 were both about more than Oscar Grant, just as 2008 Athens was about more than Alexandros Grigoropoulos, 1992 L.A. was about more than Rodney King, the 1965 Watts Rebellion about more than Marquette Frye, and so on. And like these previous moments, the London rebellions are spreading with a degree of spontaneity and a flexibility of organizational forms that has left police utterly confounded. There have already been more than 1,000 arrests, and as hysterical media outlets up the rhetorical ante with talk of “guerrilla warfare,” the police are gearing up for far more.
Mob Hysteria
When economic violence reaches a certain point, social counter-violence soon follows, and yet it is rarely the bankers or the politicians, the purveyors of global austerity measures, who bear the brunt. It begins with name-calling, and no name has more political and historical resonance than “the mob,” the most traditional of slurs. From Philadelphia to London, we are told, the specter of the mob looms, and to the image of the “baying mob,” that keystone of journalistic integrity The Sun has also added the image of the “trouble-making rabble.”
Irrational, uncontrollable, impermeable to logic and unpredictable in its movements, these undesirables have once again ruined the party for everyone, as they have done from Paris 1789 to Caracas 1989. In Fanon’s inimitable words: “the masses, without waiting for the chairs to be placed around the negotiating table, take matters into their own hands and start burning…”
To use the word “mob” is a fundamentally political gesture. It is an effort by governing elites and conservative forces to delegitimize and denigrate popular resistance, to empty it of all political content by drawing a line of rationality in the sand. To make demands is reasonable, but since “the mob” is the embodiment of unreason, it cannot possibly make demands. Never mind the very clearly political motivations that sparked the rebellions around London, as well as the growing and equally political concerns about economic inequality and racist policing: these have been well documented, no matter how little many Britons want to hear it.
But I want to address directly the idea that the riots are fundamentally irrational, as the smear of “the mob” would symbolically insist. Let’s listen closely, let’s block out the torrent of media denunciation and hear what the rebels are saying themselves:
Argument 1: Nothing Else Has Worked, This Might.
When ITV asked one young rebel what, if anything, rioting would achieve, his response was as matter-of-fact as it was profound:
“You wouldn’t be talking to me now if we didn’t riot, would you?... Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you.”
As another put it: “you can’t do nothing that’s normal for it to happen right.” In other words, legitimate discontent has not been heard through official channels, and so those suffering turn to unofficial ones. If someone has an effective counter-argument to this, I’m all ears. This is not to suggest that the rebellions have a singular logic shared by every participant, but that there is logic to be found nonetheless.
This isn’t the only time riots have worked, either: in 2009 Oakland, it was riots and only riots that led to the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of BART police officer Johannes Mehserle for the death of Oscar Grant. And this effectiveness extends to the tactical, while the left marches and is surrounded by police, these street rebels have proven far less susceptible to tactics like “kettling”: as The Guardian put it,
roaming groups of youths cannot be effectively kettled. And unlike activists they will often return to the site of trouble, seeking direct confrontation with police.The looters appear to have been more savvy. Large groups targeting shops have been melting into a nearby estate in seconds at the first sound of sirens arriving.
Argument 2: The Rich Can Do It, Why Can’t We?
Poor people aren’t stupid enough not to have noticed what’s been going on in the world around them. As capitalist crisis has set in a massive redistribution of wealth has taken place, with banks and investors bailed out at the expense of the population, effectively rewarding them for predatory behavior and leveraging national debt into economic growth. The rich line their profits as essential services and benefits are slashed, and faced with such obvious “looting,” we are somehow expected not to notice.
One onlooker to the London riots puts it precisely:
This is about youth not having a future… a lot of these people are unemployed, a lot of these people have their youth center closed down for years, and they’re basically seeing the normal things: the bankers getting away with what they’re getting away with… this is the youth actually saying to themselves, guess what? These people can get away with that, then how come we can’t tell people what we feel?
As one young female looter told The Sun, “We’re getting our taxes back,” and as another told The Guardian, “The politicians say that we loot and rob, they are the original gangsters.”
Argument 3: Locating the Riots.
Essential to the imagery of the irrational mob is the insistence that the bulk of the destruction is centered on working-class communities, and here the logic is fundamentally colonial. The poor and the Blacks can’t be trusted: look what they do to their own. Incapable of governing themselves, they must be taught civilization, by blows if necessary. Here again Oakland resonates, as after the riots there a solitary African braid shop, one of many whose windows were smashed, became the media symbol of the ‘irrationality’ of rioters hell-bent on destruction and nothing more. It is worth noting that the poor rarely “own” anything at all, even in their “own” communities.
To break this narrative, we must read the actions of the rebels as well as listening to their words. While working-class communities have indeed suffered damage (we should note that working-class communities always bear the brunt of upheaval), there has been less talk of more overtly political targeting: police stations burned to the ground, criminal courts windows smashed by those who had passed through them, and the tacitly political nature of youth streaming into neighboring areas to target luxury and chain stores. On just the first night, rioters in Tottenham Hale targeted “Boots, JD Sports, O2, Currys, Argos, Orange, PC World and Comet,” whereas some in nearby Wood Green ransacking the hulking HMV and H
Gizou
August 16, 2011 at 11:29: pm
Hi kat and Hi everyone,
I'm sorry too because i'm french and maybe i don't write english very well too..but i'm gonna try.
Kat i'm totaly agree with you for the first part of your reflexion, without a doubt.You're really right about the fact that many rioters are opportunists and are using the death of one man to plunder everything on they're way what is really sad,direspectfull and pathetic.
You're so right when you talk about the gap between rich and poor,it's a universal problem even in France.We experienced approximately the same in 2006 in our country but more localized and less violent.The trigger was the death of two teenagers in the suburbs of Paris who had fled at the sight of the police and they were refugees in a transformer.Same thing same reactions after : riots,fire everywhere,looting,fighting...But oviously as you so rightly remarked the reason underlying is this gap in the society between people from above and those below.
We are no longer in the Middle Ages and yet we suffer the same problems tirelessly today.It's disturbing that nobody in the 21st century can not have a remedy for this...
What you said about privileges and university is realisitc.It's a recurring problem in my contry too,even if our system is less unfair than in England of what i've heard or saw on tv and in some newspapers.
On the other hand i don't follow you for the bad influence point because i think on the contrary that people who had a lack of education,when they have no model family to follow, there's always someone around to be THAT person.Precisely, this can be a friend, teacher or just a person you know or someone you admire.It takes almost nothing for have the will to succeed or at least to be or even wanna be a good person.
And it's the reason why i do not agree with you when you explain that the worst killers must have consideration.Because those people are sick,it’s even beyond the disease and they have not necessarily had a bad influence or bad parents,they just have a flaw and that is not treatable.The worst murderers, child rapists, for example do not know guilt, pity or empathie.In general, these people start from childhood in torturing animals, making them the worst horrors ...So i don't believe in psycholical treatments and for these individuals,at the risk of offending some of you, I am more in favor of locking them up forever or for the death penalty.
We are the only human beings, the only "animals" to hold what we call reason(even if i believe sometimes that animals are better than us which could mean they have one..but that is an other topic)and when despicable people act in a way that is beyond understanding, we can't just hope for integrative with others. This is not possible.You have to protect the others,your kids,your family and your friends..
I do not know how it works in England and in other countries but in France when a dog bites a person and causes serious injury or the death of this one , often after the trial the court decides the dog eutanasie. Everyone finds it normal, the dog must die in total indifference ... (which I find disgusting sometimes). Everyone does not care and there is no consideration for a poor animal.
So why have one for the worst of animals, the worst predator of our species??
Here my point of view, this reflexion inspired me,i hope you understood me i’ve tried my best…fell free to comment or mark your disagreement !!!
I'm sorry too because i'm french and maybe i don't write english very well too..but i'm gonna try.
Kat i'm totaly agree with you for the first part of your reflexion, without a doubt.You're really right about the fact that many rioters are opportunists and are using the death of one man to plunder everything on they're way what is really sad,direspectfull and pathetic.
You're so right when you talk about the gap between rich and poor,it's a universal problem even in France.We experienced approximately the same in 2006 in our country but more localized and less violent.The trigger was the death of two teenagers in the suburbs of Paris who had fled at the sight of the police and they were refugees in a transformer.Same thing same reactions after : riots,fire everywhere,looting,fighting...But oviously as you so rightly remarked the reason underlying is this gap in the society between people from above and those below.
We are no longer in the Middle Ages and yet we suffer the same problems tirelessly today.It's disturbing that nobody in the 21st century can not have a remedy for this...
What you said about privileges and university is realisitc.It's a recurring problem in my contry too,even if our system is less unfair than in England of what i've heard or saw on tv and in some newspapers.
On the other hand i don't follow you for the bad influence point because i think on the contrary that people who had a lack of education,when they have no model family to follow, there's always someone around to be THAT person.Precisely, this can be a friend, teacher or just a person you know or someone you admire.It takes almost nothing for have the will to succeed or at least to be or even wanna be a good person.
And it's the reason why i do not agree with you when you explain that the worst killers must have consideration.Because those people are sick,it’s even beyond the disease and they have not necessarily had a bad influence or bad parents,they just have a flaw and that is not treatable.The worst murderers, child rapists, for example do not know guilt, pity or empathie.In general, these people start from childhood in torturing animals, making them the worst horrors ...So i don't believe in psycholical treatments and for these individuals,at the risk of offending some of you, I am more in favor of locking them up forever or for the death penalty.
We are the only human beings, the only "animals" to hold what we call reason(even if i believe sometimes that animals are better than us which could mean they have one..but that is an other topic)and when despicable people act in a way that is beyond understanding, we can't just hope for integrative with others. This is not possible.You have to protect the others,your kids,your family and your friends..
I do not know how it works in England and in other countries but in France when a dog bites a person and causes serious injury or the death of this one , often after the trial the court decides the dog eutanasie. Everyone finds it normal, the dog must die in total indifference ... (which I find disgusting sometimes). Everyone does not care and there is no consideration for a poor animal.
So why have one for the worst of animals, the worst predator of our species??
Here my point of view, this reflexion inspired me,i hope you understood me i’ve tried my best…fell free to comment or mark your disagreement !!!
x
August 17, 2011 at 1:28: am
No offence but I think that is a bit of a fallacious arguement- well we do it dogs why not humans? The answer isn't, we should do it to humans too, but that we shouldn't do it to dogs. And yes, maybe there is something "wrong" with this person, a lack of empathy being, in my opinion the key factor, but to say they are without saving I think underestimates our ability as humans to learn and grow, not only personally, but also scientifically. I dont think we can conclude that these people are evil and without any room for help. I think the problem is that, as a species, we have not yet developed enough understanding of how the brain works, how environment, temperament, chemistry, gennetics all play into why we are the way we are. More research and understanding needs to be done. At this time, we do not (generally) know HOW to help/cure people who serial murder, rape, etc. What is it that makes them the worst of our species? Why are they lacking in empathy? How do we change this? these are all questions that need to be further examined. And until we have better answers, all we know to do is 1, lock people away or kill them to remove the danger, 2, drug them to an almost comatose state, and 3, victim blame/teaching precautions (we need to lock our doors, not walk at night, not take drinks from strangers, not go near scary vans, so on and so forth). I think more awareness and emphasis needs to be put on our education systems and educating parents to maybe spot a problemed child earlier on.
Time for unpopular opinion...we also need to control population :S Unfortunately...I have NO idea how to do this, because how do you ethically restrict people who are terrible, horrible parents from recklessly getting pregnant over and over and bringing more children into unstable environments? Regulating reproduction gets into a very sticky, slippery slope situation, so instead of controlling that, we take children away from horrible home environments, only that doesn't really solve the problem, because many of these kids spend years in care systems which are austere and loveless or bouncing from family to family. Can anyone think of a fair, plausible way to control reproduction? (I can’t, though I know it is a huge problem). I mean we've got to get licenses to drive a car or drink but not to have a child? But we can't force people to use protection or not have sex (obviously) and you can't force abortions. You would think like getting a fine or going to jail, the expense of having a child would be a big enough deterrent but clearly it isn't. So what do we do??
Yes, there are people who are seemingly born with something wrong, torturing animals at a young age. There still really is no proof I dont think on what causes that. Exposure to something in the womb? A psychological condition, like sociopathy, trauma in very early years?
One thing I do think is important to look more at is empathy. http://theagepage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83443d1b053ef014e610558d9970c-pi I personally believe that empathy exists in humans on a bell curve like intelligence. You have those who, for whatever reason, lack empathy or are very low in the ability to empathise with others. Then you have those who do okay and those who are extremely empathic. I think the mjority of the problems on earth are caused by a lack of empathy. Sadly, the vast majority of humans are only average. War, greed, amassing millions at the expense of thousands of people (they can live in boxes if they are so lucky whilst you live in your grande mansion), I think much of this is due to only have mediocre empathy for fellow humans. We say that serial murderers and rapists are the worst of humanity, but I think mob mentality of the bulk in the middle of the bell curve also do vast amount of damage. I don't think the solution is to just lock away or kill the outliers at the bottom who lack any or all empathy. The solution needs to be so much more pervasive and I have to think that trying to better develop our understanding of human psychology is a key area that will help our species live more harmoniously. The better we understand ourselves, the better we can educate. Like children of lower intelligence receive special aids throughout their development, I think the same focus and emphasis needs to be made on the psychology of a student and maybe if tests show a lower empathy quotient, more specialised attention can be given to that child to help better teach them compassion and sympathy. Similarly, we foster the growth of intelligent children in gifted programs, and I think loads more can be done to support children with very high levels of empathy, so that they are not just disregarded as too sensitive or weak, but actually maybe having an opinion and awareness that can be a benefit to society.
Killing people doesn't solve the problem. It is just a temporary and inhumane fix to a far deeper problem that will only continue to be ignored. Killing people is a lazy solution.
Time for unpopular opinion...we also need to control population :S Unfortunately...I have NO idea how to do this, because how do you ethically restrict people who are terrible, horrible parents from recklessly getting pregnant over and over and bringing more children into unstable environments? Regulating reproduction gets into a very sticky, slippery slope situation, so instead of controlling that, we take children away from horrible home environments, only that doesn't really solve the problem, because many of these kids spend years in care systems which are austere and loveless or bouncing from family to family. Can anyone think of a fair, plausible way to control reproduction? (I can’t, though I know it is a huge problem). I mean we've got to get licenses to drive a car or drink but not to have a child? But we can't force people to use protection or not have sex (obviously) and you can't force abortions. You would think like getting a fine or going to jail, the expense of having a child would be a big enough deterrent but clearly it isn't. So what do we do??
Yes, there are people who are seemingly born with something wrong, torturing animals at a young age. There still really is no proof I dont think on what causes that. Exposure to something in the womb? A psychological condition, like sociopathy, trauma in very early years?
One thing I do think is important to look more at is empathy. http://theagepage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83443d1b053ef014e610558d9970c-pi I personally believe that empathy exists in humans on a bell curve like intelligence. You have those who, for whatever reason, lack empathy or are very low in the ability to empathise with others. Then you have those who do okay and those who are extremely empathic. I think the mjority of the problems on earth are caused by a lack of empathy. Sadly, the vast majority of humans are only average. War, greed, amassing millions at the expense of thousands of people (they can live in boxes if they are so lucky whilst you live in your grande mansion), I think much of this is due to only have mediocre empathy for fellow humans. We say that serial murderers and rapists are the worst of humanity, but I think mob mentality of the bulk in the middle of the bell curve also do vast amount of damage. I don't think the solution is to just lock away or kill the outliers at the bottom who lack any or all empathy. The solution needs to be so much more pervasive and I have to think that trying to better develop our understanding of human psychology is a key area that will help our species live more harmoniously. The better we understand ourselves, the better we can educate. Like children of lower intelligence receive special aids throughout their development, I think the same focus and emphasis needs to be made on the psychology of a student and maybe if tests show a lower empathy quotient, more specialised attention can be given to that child to help better teach them compassion and sympathy. Similarly, we foster the growth of intelligent children in gifted programs, and I think loads more can be done to support children with very high levels of empathy, so that they are not just disregarded as too sensitive or weak, but actually maybe having an opinion and awareness that can be a benefit to society.
Killing people doesn't solve the problem. It is just a temporary and inhumane fix to a far deeper problem that will only continue to be ignored. Killing people is a lazy solution.
X
August 17, 2011 at 1:39: am
On August 16, 2011 at 10:28: am Hmm wrote:
http://www.counterpunch.org/maher08122011.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/maher08122011.html
That's a very interesting article, thank you for sharing. The problem is that so many of us in first world countries have been bread on these ideals of freedom, equality, rights, privileges, etc and things were good for a time that many people became complacent and blind to the corruptions around them. I think things are starting to happen and change such that more and more people (middle classes) are now feeling the injustices personally and the more injustice you witness especially in the face of being raised on ideals of rights and equality, the angrier people are going to get. People do rash and sometimes stupid things when they are angry and feeling helpless.
Lala
August 17, 2011 at 8:28: pm
People act and react with a multitude of factors spurring them on - influence, instinct, environment (society), beliefs, morals, ethics, life experiences that may have either molded them for the better or scarred them for life and of course, emotions. In the end it's all about just being human and having the power to choose upon our own goodness or evil. Everything happens for a reason. I agree, people are not inherently evil. Although evil - I surmise - does exist.We can always choose not to dwell in it. For some people, though, it's not always easy.
gizou
August 18, 2011 at 1:13: am
Hey X !
Just a little explanation :)
I used the simplistic comparison with dogs to highlight the fact that men are vicious but not animals. Animals kill to eat and survive, but it’s not necessarily the case for Men. A man can kill for pleasure ...i admit that it seems limited but it’s’only to oversimplify.
You think the evil side of an assassin can be explained? It’s a defect and i think it’s innate. Innqte as having blue, brown or green eyes : you can ‘t change anything exept with subterfuges, but you’re real you is still behind.
I attended the trial of a pedophile. The pedophile in question was the childhood friend of my mom and a french teacher. He raped his nieces ( his brother’s daughters) , the daughter of a neighbor, his best friends daughter and some schoolchildren...He tried to rape my sister, but fortunately she was already a teenager and was able to defend herself and threaten him because my father was policeman ... and guess what??? He described himself in front of the court as a good and worthy man and ensuring that her nieces aged of 10 years at the relevant facts, was responsibles for seducing him !!! How can you really want to believe that ??!!! Not a single moment he apologized. He had no guilt, no empathy, nothing !!! During the trial, he was contemptuous, haughty, proud of himself, arrogant, cynical, cold, and harsh. He was simply scary and disgusting. Me (even if i always knew, when i was a little girl that somthing was wrong about him), my family and everyone else, we rubbed shoulders with him for years without knowing what was going on behind that face of uncle, friend and teacher. I saw it ; at the trial with my own eyes. He showed his true pervert face when he was able to hide it so well… I'll let you guess what I heard… the story of each vicitmes was unbearable to hear.I saw what he looked like, the look on his face, the evil grin that he was constantly wearing and believe me it change you’re mind forever.
And yet, he had a happy childhood without shadows …
Finally, he was sentenced. He came out at the end of the half of his sentence for GOOD BEHAVIOR...Oh yeah!! I forget! there is no little girl in a prison cell ...
He will probably start it again in the greatest impunity if it’s not already done…
So you’re maybe right, it’s probably inhuman to think that , and on hand you’re not so wrong. But I would like him to be locked up forever or dead because he returned to live next to my mother's house.I have 4 nephews and I am very careful with them.
And in general if I had to kill to protect those I love, i would probably do it. I don’t think that, wanting the death of a criminal in this case or in of other einous crimes that we see, is inhuman. On the contrary. The border may be slim, but there is still one.
When you are not personally affected you think otherwise, but when you see the reality, when you have the misfortune to see theTenth of human cruelty, you think differently.
I understand you’re point because i was like you, like kat… I was convinced that people could not be inherently evil. I changed by experience. Also because of all that I hear and see in the news.
Just a little explanation :)
I used the simplistic comparison with dogs to highlight the fact that men are vicious but not animals. Animals kill to eat and survive, but it’s not necessarily the case for Men. A man can kill for pleasure ...i admit that it seems limited but it’s’only to oversimplify.
You think the evil side of an assassin can be explained? It’s a defect and i think it’s innate. Innqte as having blue, brown or green eyes : you can ‘t change anything exept with subterfuges, but you’re real you is still behind.
I attended the trial of a pedophile. The pedophile in question was the childhood friend of my mom and a french teacher. He raped his nieces ( his brother’s daughters) , the daughter of a neighbor, his best friends daughter and some schoolchildren...He tried to rape my sister, but fortunately she was already a teenager and was able to defend herself and threaten him because my father was policeman ... and guess what??? He described himself in front of the court as a good and worthy man and ensuring that her nieces aged of 10 years at the relevant facts, was responsibles for seducing him !!! How can you really want to believe that ??!!! Not a single moment he apologized. He had no guilt, no empathy, nothing !!! During the trial, he was contemptuous, haughty, proud of himself, arrogant, cynical, cold, and harsh. He was simply scary and disgusting. Me (even if i always knew, when i was a little girl that somthing was wrong about him), my family and everyone else, we rubbed shoulders with him for years without knowing what was going on behind that face of uncle, friend and teacher. I saw it ; at the trial with my own eyes. He showed his true pervert face when he was able to hide it so well… I'll let you guess what I heard… the story of each vicitmes was unbearable to hear.I saw what he looked like, the look on his face, the evil grin that he was constantly wearing and believe me it change you’re mind forever.
And yet, he had a happy childhood without shadows …
Finally, he was sentenced. He came out at the end of the half of his sentence for GOOD BEHAVIOR...Oh yeah!! I forget! there is no little girl in a prison cell ...
He will probably start it again in the greatest impunity if it’s not already done…
So you’re maybe right, it’s probably inhuman to think that , and on hand you’re not so wrong. But I would like him to be locked up forever or dead because he returned to live next to my mother's house.I have 4 nephews and I am very careful with them.
And in general if I had to kill to protect those I love, i would probably do it. I don’t think that, wanting the death of a criminal in this case or in of other einous crimes that we see, is inhuman. On the contrary. The border may be slim, but there is still one.
When you are not personally affected you think otherwise, but when you see the reality, when you have the misfortune to see theTenth of human cruelty, you think differently.
I understand you’re point because i was like you, like kat… I was convinced that people could not be inherently evil. I changed by experience. Also because of all that I hear and see in the news.
X
August 20, 2011 at 1:31: am
You use the example of an assassin, though you it is possible that an assassin is not killing for pleasure but for money and they simply lack the empathy or sensitivity to ever be plagued with guilt for it. I’ve also met people who are so nihilistic and lost all hope and reason for life and viewed humans as such a parasite that in their minds, killing people is a gift to the planet. The point is, we don’t always know why people do things (that’s the problem) and I don’t think it is beneficial to simply conclude, he’s evil. That removes all burden on society to try to fix the root of problems by always resorting to the root being “evil” which can’t really be addressed other than to kill back (which makes no sense does it)?? Or lock up forever (or in most cases not forever and once again the problems repeat.
I am not arguing that there is not some innate quality, in fact, I even stated that like intelligence, which many would say is innate as you either are intelligent or you are not, people are perhaps born with varying degrees of empathy and the ability to think through another’s eyes, feel emotions strongly, etc. But “evil” has a certain fantastical quality about it that “lacking empathy” does not, making evil seem like something beyond saving (lost at birth if you’re born evil). I guess my question is, how do we know it is immutable? Or that there is no use in trying to figure out why some people are born with this “evilness”.
I just have a hard time believing some people are born wicked and unreachable. I have to think that it is more a lack of empathy or lack of stimulation because they can’t feel things as intensely, which are both things if identified earlier in childhood that can hopefully be corrected towards appropriate behaviours. Maybe encouraging these people to go into “dangerous” professions or professions which take a lot of cunning and stoic skill. Trying to better teach them interpersonal skills or relate things to them in ways maybe they will, if not personally understand, logically accept. I’m not saying we could save everyone, just that it is a bit defeatist and backwards to say theyre evil, just kill them AFTER they’ve killed or harmed innocent people.
Im not excusing what that man did to all those people including your sister, but I don’t necessarily get evilness from his boldfaced claim that they seduced him so much as that’s he’s delusional and in fact may show some signs of self-consciousness because he is so opposed to viewing himself as bad and evil that he’s convinced himself that he was seduced. It seems like more of a psychological illness than evilness, and that means that we shouldn’t give up trying to better understand it. Im not saying he isn’t culpable, what he has done is very evil. Even if you care nothing for the criminal, think of all the kids who would be spared hurt if we could actually make progress on better understanding why paedophiles do what they do and hopefully better, more humane methods on preventing it??
It seems more as though the real pervasive “evil” that the world experiences, genocide, mobs, treatment and slaughter of animals, over-consumption of resources, general white collar crime and I don’t just mean petty fraud but the unconscionable gap between rich and poor- poverty, greed, selfishness, etc are not caused by the few heinous acts of a few “evil” people, but rather by the majority of your average humans who, in a moment or overall, lack a certain amount of empathy or willingness to think of the whole and goodness rather than self. Even good, decent people say, when I’m rich…Or when I am successful, I’m going to buy this and that…without ever pausing to think about how them getting rich means money being piled into their bank accounts at the expense of feeding hungry people. But people don’t want to think about those things, how others suffer, so they shut it out and deny it. Just imagine that ten fold, blocking out all feeling, you might even be able to kill. We practically do it every day. We block our borders, refuse refugees escaping war, poverty, famine so that we can continue to have our air conditioned homes and a comfortable mattress and amazing foods from restaurants and we throw away food we’ve let spoil. I do it too, I’m fully guilty of it and I know I’m not an evil person.
You imply that my opinion is somehow naïve and innocently idealistic because I have not experienced a tenth of human cruelty; that I will see differently once I have. How do you know I havent (on multiple, horrible occasions)? Maybe my opinion is idealistic, but it is because I actually hold hope that we have the power to learn more and better understand human psychology and will be able to better prevent evil from happening with the more we know. I realise killing people and locking them up is a “simpler” and quicker solution (after the fact). I just think we can do better, more preventative things at the root.
I am not arguing that there is not some innate quality, in fact, I even stated that like intelligence, which many would say is innate as you either are intelligent or you are not, people are perhaps born with varying degrees of empathy and the ability to think through another’s eyes, feel emotions strongly, etc. But “evil” has a certain fantastical quality about it that “lacking empathy” does not, making evil seem like something beyond saving (lost at birth if you’re born evil). I guess my question is, how do we know it is immutable? Or that there is no use in trying to figure out why some people are born with this “evilness”.
I just have a hard time believing some people are born wicked and unreachable. I have to think that it is more a lack of empathy or lack of stimulation because they can’t feel things as intensely, which are both things if identified earlier in childhood that can hopefully be corrected towards appropriate behaviours. Maybe encouraging these people to go into “dangerous” professions or professions which take a lot of cunning and stoic skill. Trying to better teach them interpersonal skills or relate things to them in ways maybe they will, if not personally understand, logically accept. I’m not saying we could save everyone, just that it is a bit defeatist and backwards to say theyre evil, just kill them AFTER they’ve killed or harmed innocent people.
Im not excusing what that man did to all those people including your sister, but I don’t necessarily get evilness from his boldfaced claim that they seduced him so much as that’s he’s delusional and in fact may show some signs of self-consciousness because he is so opposed to viewing himself as bad and evil that he’s convinced himself that he was seduced. It seems like more of a psychological illness than evilness, and that means that we shouldn’t give up trying to better understand it. Im not saying he isn’t culpable, what he has done is very evil. Even if you care nothing for the criminal, think of all the kids who would be spared hurt if we could actually make progress on better understanding why paedophiles do what they do and hopefully better, more humane methods on preventing it??
It seems more as though the real pervasive “evil” that the world experiences, genocide, mobs, treatment and slaughter of animals, over-consumption of resources, general white collar crime and I don’t just mean petty fraud but the unconscionable gap between rich and poor- poverty, greed, selfishness, etc are not caused by the few heinous acts of a few “evil” people, but rather by the majority of your average humans who, in a moment or overall, lack a certain amount of empathy or willingness to think of the whole and goodness rather than self. Even good, decent people say, when I’m rich…Or when I am successful, I’m going to buy this and that…without ever pausing to think about how them getting rich means money being piled into their bank accounts at the expense of feeding hungry people. But people don’t want to think about those things, how others suffer, so they shut it out and deny it. Just imagine that ten fold, blocking out all feeling, you might even be able to kill. We practically do it every day. We block our borders, refuse refugees escaping war, poverty, famine so that we can continue to have our air conditioned homes and a comfortable mattress and amazing foods from restaurants and we throw away food we’ve let spoil. I do it too, I’m fully guilty of it and I know I’m not an evil person.
You imply that my opinion is somehow naïve and innocently idealistic because I have not experienced a tenth of human cruelty; that I will see differently once I have. How do you know I havent (on multiple, horrible occasions)? Maybe my opinion is idealistic, but it is because I actually hold hope that we have the power to learn more and better understand human psychology and will be able to better prevent evil from happening with the more we know. I realise killing people and locking them up is a “simpler” and quicker solution (after the fact). I just think we can do better, more preventative things at the root.
Gizou
August 22, 2011 at 6:36: pm
I didn't say that you're opinion was naïve! it's far of my tought really, i have respect for you even if i don't know you...you have your ideaS and i have mine..if you think in this way about what i think it's ok but i hope you're not offended. We are in disagree and it's not the end of the world :) You have totally the right to be convinced in what you believe and it's great.I have conviction too it's that simple.On the other hand you're totaly right on the topic about famine and everything and i'm fully guilty too but unfotunetly but unfortunately I'm not the president of my country, I want things to be differentT but I'm just a drop of water in the sea...it's very annoying I agree with you and yes it does not make us evil beings..(and i don't think you are).On the question of "evil people or not" I wish more than anything else that you could be right. That said, discussing with you was very interesting.A real debate! And I liked that.See you!
Dave
August 25, 2011 at 4:22: am
Hello I read your blog and am really interested in the situation that your country is going. I totally agree on your point of view and also believe that no man is naturally evil, but what is the consequence of that influence. I think society in which we live is not efficient because it produces poverty, inequality, ignorance and selfishness of course many of these things are more present today why these events happen.
I'm from Argentina and my country, something similar happened at that time was too young to understand what happened and only judged, but now I understand that you can not judge the misdeeds of the people since they are conditioned by their social situation. I think a major problem to be solved, definitely do not think that people are evil by nature!
kisses from argentina kat!
sorry if my English is bad is a bit complicated for me haha
dave.
I'm from Argentina and my country, something similar happened at that time was too young to understand what happened and only judged, but now I understand that you can not judge the misdeeds of the people since they are conditioned by their social situation. I think a major problem to be solved, definitely do not think that people are evil by nature!
kisses from argentina kat!
sorry if my English is bad is a bit complicated for me haha
dave.
ColeeyJuliaa
August 25, 2011 at 4:39: am
i want to meet you! are you still in london?(:, i'm glad the riots have stopped!
Dana
August 25, 2011 at 11:54: am
I don't know if you go to college or not, but if you do. You should be a psychology major, or a sociology major.
And if you liked Rilke, you'll like Master and Margarita by Bulgakov, or East of Eden by Steinbeck.
And if you liked Rilke, you'll like Master and Margarita by Bulgakov, or East of Eden by Steinbeck.
kathryn prescott
September 1, 2011 at 2:28: pm
Does anyone else read the Big Issue? There was a great article on this subject in a recent issue with insights from social and youth psychologists and rioters themselves, you can read it here:
http://www.bigissuescotland.com/public/magarchive/849_MAG.pdf
xx
http://www.bigissuescotland.com/public/magarchive/849_MAG.pdf
xx
Ashley
September 8, 2011 at 11:51: pm
Hey Kat! I love love the way you write! You have such a way with words and you are quite intellectual (not that I have never thought that of you before!). I was wondering if you've ever seen the french film La Haine? It was quite amazing to watch, filmed beautifully, and it really leaves you thinking and searching for the overall meaning and message that the director wanted you to leave with. I found that there was no overall message because there still isn't an answer to this big issue. It is still a big problem today.
It seems that in society, the rich keep getting richer, and the poor are only getting poorer. Yes few do break out of the cycle but to accomplish this feat is amazing as all odds are very much against you. It is just a difficult issue to try to solve, when poor people can't even get a job for the very reason that they ARE poor and employers might want someone "more educated and qualified".
Also in my opinion it is quite strange that the rich will just become wealthier. I use the examples of celebrities and athletes. For example, actors, soccer players, and big musicians make an astronomical amount for basically just being themselves. I think I read somewhere that David Beckham at one point was paid at the rate of $425 a minute!
This is just to put things in perspective. But yeah, I really enjoyed your post Kat! You are a great writer and you should write a novel!!
It seems that in society, the rich keep getting richer, and the poor are only getting poorer. Yes few do break out of the cycle but to accomplish this feat is amazing as all odds are very much against you. It is just a difficult issue to try to solve, when poor people can't even get a job for the very reason that they ARE poor and employers might want someone "more educated and qualified".
Also in my opinion it is quite strange that the rich will just become wealthier. I use the examples of celebrities and athletes. For example, actors, soccer players, and big musicians make an astronomical amount for basically just being themselves. I think I read somewhere that David Beckham at one point was paid at the rate of $425 a minute!
This is just to put things in perspective. But yeah, I really enjoyed your post Kat! You are a great writer and you should write a novel!!
JxxZ
September 18, 2011 at 3:14: am
Hey Kat
I totally agree. not too long ago I wrote something simular on my tumblr to do with how people dont care much anymore.. was including the way people are brought up.. i would say my family fit the middle class ... and I have been brought up by parents which exspect you to respect a person etc ... And i wouldnt even consider rioting, although tbf I live a far way away from London .. but it was completely ridiculous the way people were acting ..
All the best
JxxZ
I totally agree. not too long ago I wrote something simular on my tumblr to do with how people dont care much anymore.. was including the way people are brought up.. i would say my family fit the middle class ... and I have been brought up by parents which exspect you to respect a person etc ... And i wouldnt even consider rioting, although tbf I live a far way away from London .. but it was completely ridiculous the way people were acting ..
All the best
JxxZ
mj
September 21, 2011 at 4:11: pm
'the youth of the middle east rise up for basic freedoms. the youth of england rise up for a 42" HD'
Aug
15
This Week in London
Posted by Kathryn Prescott on 15 Aug 2011 | 25 comments
So what a week to return to London... Was anyone affected by the riots? My mum lives only ten minutes away from one of the worst areas hit, places where I spent time as a kid have been smashed to pieces. It does make you wonder about the current ecological climate but at the same time, I don't think it totally excuses the behaviour of all those involved. Especially when many of the rioters were just sufficiently privileged opportunists using the death of one man to get some free stuff. Mob mentality is just a cowards way to be brave as part of a body, therefore (i guess in their minds) diminishing their own responsibilit. It's weak-minded and kind of sickening.
Riots aside, something clearly needs to be done about the gap between the poor and the wealthy, minimum wage is still terrifyingly low and prices are continuing to rise. If you spend all day doing a job you dislike because you have not been privileged enough to have gone to University or even college and you don't have the time or money to find your passions or educate yourself another way because you are having to work endless hours, you are going to get frustrated and angry. Saying that, coming from a less than privileged background is not always an excuse, there are plenty of people who have worked hard and fought their way out of the poverty cycle, it is just difficult. Especially if you happen to have had no good influences growing up, be that from a Mother or Father, a teacher or simply a friend, you are only as good as your influences, and it is very difficult to break from a majority of bad ones- what reason have you to be a decent person?
We are all quick to condemn people for doing wrong, but if we look at the reasons behind it, it becomes much more complex a problem. People who perform the most horrendous deeds have often had unbelievably disturbing upbringings themselves, which whilst they do not excuse their behaviour or make it ok, are often brushed aside and not taken into account at all, so instead of receiving serious psychological treatment whilst in prison (if they are caught) they are demonized, beaten and probably have their most harmful issues within themselves deepened, ready for the world again upon their (possible) release.
There's a really good quote by Rilke which goes-
"Perhaps everything terrible is in its deepest being something helpless that wants help from us"
I think it really applies. I'm not sure if I believe in evil, or at least, in inherent evil. Created evil definitely, but I struggle to believe that a person can be born evil, it just sounds like something out of bad film. I think children, and in fact people in general, are like sponges- they suck up everything around them and you can only wring out of them what you put in.
What are your thoughts?
Kat x