to think that 'explaining the riots' and 'justifying the riots' are two different things? doing my head in...

[dreamingbohemian]

Let's be clear: NO ONE, except for idiots and criminals, is happy about the riots. No one thinks it's okay for the city to be set on fire, people's lives endangered, years of hard work destroyed, etc. They are a terrible thing and the people doing the damage should be punished.

But I do firmly believe that to keep this from happening again, we need to understand why they are happening, which means looking at social and economic factors that are driving so many people into criminality in the first place. But then people on here or in real life (Boris Johnson, sigh) say you are justifying or excusing the riots.

I honestly don't get it! Am I crazy? Do people really prefer to go around judging instead of understanding, just making up solutions and hoping they work?

I am putting this in AIBU because to me it seems so obvious that explaining is not justifying, but so many people believe differently that I am actually starting to wonder if I'm missing something.

Orm I think 'lacks empathy' is exactly the point. Humans are born with (with very few exceptions) the capacity for empathy, but it takes the right kind of interaction with caregivers for that capacity to develop. With a huge swathe of young people, that seems not to have happened. That was what I found so striking about the BBC's recording of those two young girls who though that rioting and destruction was fun. Total lack of empathy for the victims of their actions.

But empathy has to be taught by parents. It can't be imposed by the state. In the absence of internalised moral codes and empathy for others, the state can impose authoritarian restrictions (which I think we'll be seeing more of in the aftermath of these riots), but the state can't force people to feel emotions they've never learned to feel.

Wanting to cause pain is a positive. Lacking empathy is a negative. If my toddler found a ladybird and wanted to squish it, it would be because he was curious (good) but lacked the empathy to understand the suffering he would cause (not good). if he killed the ladybird because he wanted to cause suffering that wouldn't be simply a lack of empathy but something much nastier as well - in fact empathy would be essential to understanding the suffering that would be caused.

, "I don't see how you can say the looters are mostly 14-17 year olds"

Because it was widely reported in the news.