The other day, the liberal public rolled out an open letter in support of detainees in the so-called Moscow case. The face of this campaign was made by the person who called for the reprisal of children of law enforcement officers, the blogger Sinitsa.
More recently, an in-depth study of the behavior of home abusers was released in the UK. Jane Moncton Smith, a forensic forensic specialist specializing in homicide, forced control, and prosecution, that is, a specialist, unlike you and the majority of the liberal public, studied 372 cases with a fatal outcome when the rapist, home tyrant, reached the murder roommate.
Having examined these cases, she identified eight stages that preceded the killings. All of them are mainly about the control of the situation and the person, about the very idea of the ability to influence, manage, hold, etc., about planning and a clear (!) Understanding of how the crime can be committed. That is, before the murder, a person learns, if only for the sake of “interest”, how to accomplish his plan.
What blogger Tit wrote on his Twitter is alarming. And his awareness is alarming. This is at least. And to judge what is in his head should not be us, but specialists. Forensic scientists, psychiatrists - not us.
The history of the Titmouse recalls, of course, the history of Tesak, but for some reason then the liberals did not fit in with the convict. Most likely, because he did not express his opinion against their opponents, unlike Sinitsa, who drowned the law enforcement officials for dismembering children. Interestingly, how would the demshiza behave if the Tit called to kill the children of the opposition?
Now, some of the activists and human rights activists are trying to drag out his case precisely as an attempt on the freedom of speech of the opposition itself.
Again, in order to communicate with the authorities, with those people who make decisions, in particular on the abolition or decriminalization of the 282nd, you need to understand the rhetoric and the language in which these people communicate. Margarita Simonyan correctly said that it’s wrong, it’s wrong to choose the Titmouse as a character to illustrate the case of article 282, because it works exactly the opposite. And decision-makers perceive his case not as a positive example, not as an example in favor of cancellation, but in favor of preserving the article.
And, of course, a very important point is that the opposition behaves completely inconsistently and fits in with people who they like, or for whom it is beneficial for them to fit in. And the same Tit - it becomes just a cog, an occasion to continue the discussion of this already faded information protest tyagomotin. And since they save all the people of the so-called Moscow business, they decided at the same time to fit in with this weirdo.
Although, of course, that heatspich that he issued had nothing to do with cases, with the values, expressions, actions that other participants in the summer rallies used. And it seems to me that his support is hindering not only people who are already sitting on the 282nd, but also everyone else who was detained after the protests in Moscow.
The problem with schizoid liberals is that they are trying to fight for all the good against all the bad. In the context of the 282nd and Sinitsa case, it is important to see the difference between those who incited and called for hatred against a certain group of people, and those who really just expressed their opinion on the network. And words may not be equal action, but words are at least a reflection of thoughts. And thoughts like Sinitsa scare me.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.