Self-contained Chris Benoit and GWE Talk

[overbooked]

Failure to engage with the possible reasons behind a tragedy means we're doomed to repeat it.

 

It seems far easier to write the Benoit murderss off as a one-off than acknowledge that wrestling played a big part in what happened, and that this isn't just about watching Benoit but us contining to watch and support an entertainment that will almost certainly lead to more tragedies.

[Danish Dynamite]

Wave the flag for someone with mental illness who has not committed murder or a similarly horrible act. I just don't get what's contentious about that point. Find one of the likely countless wrestlers, football players or others who have brain trauma. Scream it from the hills. But please first confirm whether or not they have killed someone.

 

But don't you see the point that Benoit most likely suffered from something way more serious (he was way more fucked up) than a concussed football player who never came close to doing the same thing as Benoit? And that by ignoring his illnes, not looking into it, not trying to prevent it in the future, not trying to understand it and treat it in others, but just saying "others may suffer from a mental illness that should be treated, but when the illness makes you cross a certain line, we should stop trying to understand it, because trying to understand it implies acceptance of the action" might in the future enable us to help people suffering from minor mental illness, but won't help prevent actions like Benoit's or treat people who are as fucked up as he was in time?

[WingedEagle]

Bringing up the fact he is Canadian is so fucking off base. I didn't vote for Benoit. I didn't like him that much when he was living either.

 

 

"Agreed -- but when your basis for that argument is someone who murdered his wife and child, you lose. Its just that simple."

 

So.. we should not try to help people who are sick so that this doesn't happen again or at least we can prevent it sometimes? I don't get your point.

 

 

Do you really not get my point?

 

Did I show ambivalence toward mental illness or caring for those with brain trauma? Did I not make it plainly clear that wife- and child-murderer Chris Benoit was a poor platform for arguing for that point? If this confusion is due to reading comprehension or my words not being clear then I'm happy to clarify, because I'm sure there's no way it'd be willful ignorance.

[Danish Dynamite]

Failure to engage with the possible reasons behind a tragedy means we're doomed to repeat it.

 

It seems far easier to write the Benoit murderss off as a one-off than acknowledge that wrestling played a big part in what happened, and that this isn't just about watching Benoit but us contining to watch and support an entertainment that will almost certainly lead to more tragedies.

 

Scarily accurate.

 

This sentence is fucking important: "Failure to engage with the possible reasons behind a tragedy means we're doomed to repeat it."

[WingedEagle]

 

Wave the flag for someone with mental illness who has not committed murder or a similarly horrible act. I just don't get what's contentious about that point. Find one of the likely countless wrestlers, football players or others who have brain trauma. Scream it from the hills. But please first confirm whether or not they have killed someone.

 

But don't you see the point that Benoit most likely suffered from something way more serious (he was way more fucked up) than a concussed football player who never came close to doing the same thing as Benoit? And that by ignoring his illnes, not looking into it, not trying to prevent it in the future, not trying to understand it and treat it in others, but just saying "others may suffer from a mental illness that should be treated, but when the illness makes you cross a certain line, we should stop trying to understand it, because trying to understand it implies acceptance of the action" might in the future enable us to help people suffering from minor mental illness, but won't help prevent actions like Benoit's or treat people who are as fucked up as he was in time?

 

 

Go for it. Treat everything. Just don't try to change the top line of Chris Benoit's resume. I take issue with qualifying his actions in any way. You can explore and hopefully find solutions for brain trauma without providing an opening for excusing his actions.

[Grimmas]

Who is excusing his actions???

[Danish Dynamite]

 

 

Wave the flag for someone with mental illness who has not committed murder or a similarly horrible act. I just don't get what's contentious about that point. Find one of the likely countless wrestlers, football players or others who have brain trauma. Scream it from the hills. But please first confirm whether or not they have killed someone.

 

But don't you see the point that Benoit most likely suffered from something way more serious (he was way more fucked up) than a concussed football player who never came close to doing the same thing as Benoit? And that by ignoring his illnes, not looking into it, not trying to prevent it in the future, not trying to understand it and treat it in others, but just saying "others may suffer from a mental illness that should be treated, but when the illness makes you cross a certain line, we should stop trying to understand it, because trying to understand it implies acceptance of the action" might in the future enable us to help people suffering from minor mental illness, but won't help prevent actions like Benoit's or treat people who are as fucked up as he was in time?

 

 

Go for it. Treat everything. Just don't try to change the top line of Chris Benoit's resume. I take issue with qualifying his actions in any way. You can explore and hopefully find solutions for brain trauma without providing an opening for excusing his actions.

 

 

Hmmm. You possibly missed my post about the difference between Benoit's condition and a psychopathic killer devoid of empathy, but otherwise "there" (am coming up short for an English term, sorry, but I hope you get my point). Either that, or you just disagree, which I guess doesn't really matter much on a wrestling board :-) But my point was not in any way that everything is treatable. Benoit was probably treatable. Why is that not an important aspect?

 

But this line from overbooked: "Failure to engage with the possible reasons behind a tragedy means we're doomed to repeat it." pretty much explains the importance of debating it. Again, maybe not on a wrestling board, but in general.

 

If people see my (or Steven's) arguments as an opening for excusing Benoit's actions then they either do not read what we've written or look for that opening everywhere (either to close it at all costs or to use it).

 

And again. I don't see us making any excuse for him whatsoever. And I certainly don't see any of us censoring his resume.

[PhilTLL]

But don't you see the point that Benoit most likely suffered from something way more serious (he was way more fucked up) than a concussed football player who never came close to doing the same thing as Benoit?

That is not at all a reasonable thing to say given what we actually know versus what we presume, not as much likely as that he was at the intersection of abusive and ill/brain-damaged. "He did a worse thing, so he had a worse brain" is the sort of excuse-seeming, misrepresenting mental illness vs criminality statement that makes me queasy.

[WingedEagle]

Anyone who says its incorrect to call him a murderer? How about those concerned with the treatment of Chris Benoit if he were alive? For reference, see your earlier posts, also quoted on page 6 of this thread.

 

What's wrong with leaving it at Chris Benoit killed his fucking family. Brain trauma is serious. We should treat it seriously. The end.

[Danish Dynamite]

 

But don't you see the point that Benoit most likely suffered from something way more serious (he was way more fucked up) than a concussed football player who never came close to doing the same thing as Benoit?

That is not at all a reasonable inference given what we actually know, not as much as that he was at the intersection of abusive and brain-damaged. "He did a worse thing, so he had a worse brain" is the sort of excuse-seeming, misrepresenting mental illness thing that makes me queasy.

 

 

How the hell can you imply me excusing his actions? Thatseriously implies that you do not want to at a minimum try to understand the people you are debating. And is that's so, then obviously the debate is pointless.

 

For the record: I am not debating you or anyone to "win" or to make you change your views. I don't really care. I'm trying to understand you. But it does get a little boring if you're not even remotely trying to understand the other way around.

 

And I am sure you can read my implication that there is something different between Benoit's and actions and the unspecific concussed football player that someone brought up as an example for comparrison. Yes, that difference may be, if one does not want to try to understand what happened, that he was just a one-off fucked up sick killer. And believe me, my most base response is that killing your wife and child is not only inexcusable (which I strongly believe it is) but also inexpliccable (which it just might not be). But if this debate was only to go by my gut instinct and my moral compass, then anyone comitting murder is inexcusable. Anyone hurting a child is. Anyone killing an animal out of cruelty is. Anyone stealing is. And then we erase the lines between the different criminals we've all agreed have floated in and out of the wrestling business. So from that I probably shouldn't rank anyone. I try very consciously not to go down that rabbit hole, because there is a big fucking difference between all those other actions and Benoit's. So I am not, for hopefully the fucking last time, excusing Benoit.

 

I do however have a very different moralistic view than you it seems, when it comes to crime, mental health and probably a good many other things. And I really don't think we should go into that, because that has absolutely nothing to do with our common passion for wrestling.

 

Lots of clever people say, that when you come together for a common interest, if that interest is not religion or politics, then you would do well to leave religion and politics out of it completely. And I get a feeling that you and I better do that. But hey, I could be wrong.

 

I still feel that you really try not to make an effort to understand the other side of the argument.

[Danish Dynamite]

Anyone who says its incorrect to call him a murderer? How about those concerned with the treatment of Chris Benoit if he were alive? For reference, see your earlier posts, also quoted on page 6 of this thread.

 

What's wrong with leaving it at Chris Benoit killed his fucking family. Brain trauma is serious. We should treat it seriously. The end.

 

I am completely at a loss as to how you can say that we (if you're still referring to either me or Steve) have said it's incorrect to call him a murderer. I think I've even called him a "fucking murderer" to stress the point. To me cold-blooded implies conscious thought and a lack of emapthy and clear frame of mind. I thought it was pretty well established that there were other factors also at play with Benoit. If there wasn't then I'm just not well enough informed on the matter. But if there is, then it's factually wrong to just call him cold-blooded. It's totally understandable, but probably not quite correct. And I strongly believe that we need to take that seriously in order to understand and prevent. I totally get the need to just push it aside and only say "murderer" when thinking of Benoit. I think it's natural, but I think it's a bad idea.

 

"What's wrong with leaving it at Chris Benoit killed his fucking family. Brain trauma is serious. We should treat it seriously. The end."

 

Nothing wrong with that on a wrestling thread. At all. People opened this thread up to being about more than wrestling, and if that's the case, I'd have to remove the full stops in your comment to directly connect the brain trauma with his actions. I hear and respect you not wanting to do that. I'd have preffered it if you could also respect my point of view that it's important not to disconnect the two if we're ever to prevent it. But I honestly think nothing less of you for not wanting to. That's fine. We just can't get any further debating with each other about it then.

 

I really think we should leave it at that, as you say. I truly look forward to engaging with you on much more enjoyable subjects, wrestling related or otherwise.

[goodhelmet]

OK fellas... time to wrap this up.

[WingedEagle]

 

Anyone who says its incorrect to call him a murderer? How about those concerned with the treatment of Chris Benoit if he were alive? For reference, see your earlier posts, also quoted on page 6 of this thread.

 

What's wrong with leaving it at Chris Benoit killed his fucking family. Brain trauma is serious. We should treat it seriously. The end.

 

I am completely at a loss as to how you can say that we (if you're still referring to either me or Steve) have said it's incorrect to call him a murderer. I think I've even called him a "fucking murderer" to stress the point. To me cold-blooded implies conscious thought and a lack of emapthy and clear frame of mind. I thought it was pretty well established that there were other factors also at play with Benoit. If there wasn't then I'm just not well enough informed on the matter. But if there is, then it's factually wrong to just call him cold-blooded. It's totally understandable, but probably not quite correct. And I strongly believe that we need to take that seriously in order to understand and prevent. I totally get the need to just push it aside and only say "murderer" when thinking of Benoit. I think it's natural, but I think it's a bad idea.

 

"What's wrong with leaving it at Chris Benoit killed his fucking family. Brain trauma is serious. We should treat it seriously. The end."

 

Nothing wrong with that on a wrestling thread. At all. People opened this thread up to being about more than wrestling, and if that's the case, I'd have to remove the full stops in your comment to directly connect the brain trauma with his actions. I hear and respect you not wanting to do that. I'd have preffered it if you could also respect my point of view that it's important not to disconnect the two if we're ever to prevent it. But I honestly think nothing less of you for not wanting to. That's fine. We just can't get any further debating with each other about it then.

 

I really think we should leave it at that, as you say. I truly look forward to engaging with you on much more enjoyable subjects, wrestling related or otherwise.

 

 

Amen, brotha.

[PhilTLL]

I'll not be going on, but I think I've been very careful to impugn *arguments*, not motives. It's important to think about whether the arguments you make on topics like this advance the points you think they do, and that you actually hold. If I've seen a point that *unwittingly* seems to excuse murder and muddies the role of mental illness, I've tried to explain why I felt that. Toodles.

[Danish Dynamite]

I'll not be going on, but I think I've been very careful to impugn *arguments*, not motives. It's important to think about whether the arguments you make on topics like this advance the points you think they do, and that you actually hold. If I've seen a point that *unwittingly* seems to excuse murder and muddies the role of mental illness, I've tried to explain why I felt that. Toodles.

 

I hear your intent, but don't think that's what you're putting across. And I disagree that any arguments made by Steven or me excuse murder, unwittingly or otherwise. You feel we unintentionally excuse his actions, I feel you lack nuance in how you read our comments.

 

But I have an idea. What do you say we follow the suggestions of the helmets and the eagles of this world and leave it at that, wrap this up and head on back to the wrestling threads? I'm sure we can find common ground on a lot of stuff there, and unite our eagerness to debate against a "common enemy" who needs to learn from our collective pool of wisdom

[ChuckScumm]

Didn't his brain tests show that he had the brain of a Alzheimer's patient?

[Johnny Sorrow]

Didn't his brain tests show that he had the brain of a Alzheimer's patient?

I spent twenty three years working with Alzheimer's victims and none of them ever went on a murder spree.

[Jingus]

Does anyone have any links to specific autopsy findings about Benoit's brain? I remember conflicting reports about that. At one point, people were claiming that Benoit's brain decomposed badly enough while his body was sitting in an non-air-conditioned room that it was tough to do much analysis.

[kjh]

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Chronic traumatic encephalopathy in a professional American wrestler: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1939-3938.2010.01078.x/abstract

 

 

 

We present in this case report the tissue substrates and forensic evidence for chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in a professional American wrestler with Apolipoprotein E (apoE) genotyping. Professional wrestling is a contact-sport, with an integral risk for players to sustain repeated concussions over their careers. This case provides the first autopsy evidence of neuropathological abnormalities that accompany CTE in professional American wrestlers. A complete autopsy was performed on a 40-year-old Caucasian male, after he died unexpectedly by suicidal hanging after he had killed his wife and son. The brain showed no atrophy and no recent or remote contusions or necrosis. There was a mild to moderate neocortical neuronal dropout without any amyloid plaques. There were diffuse, sparse to frequent tau-immunoreactive Neurofibrillary Tangles and Neuropil Threads in the neocortex, subcortical ganglia, and brainstem nuclei including the substantia nigra consistent with CTE. The apoE genotype was determined to be E3/E3. Other autopsy findings included cardiomegaly, left ventricular hypertrophy, and bilateral atrioventricular dilatation; toxicologic analyses showed alprazolam and hydrocodone in the blood, and evidence of exogenous testosterone in the urine. Longitudinal studies of professional contact-sport athletes are needed to identify the differentiating characteristics of athletes who develop CTE and devise strategies for intervention.

[kjh]

My personal opinion is that although brain damage was obviously an important factor in the Benoit tragedy, I think it's far from the only important factor, and not enough to absolve blame/guilt.

[Jingus]

Thanks KJH. Any med school graduates here who can translate the jargon into layman's terms?

 

I do think the brain damage was almost certainly a contributing factor, considering the stories we've heard about how Chris's behavior had become even stranger than usual in his final months. But I don't think it's the primary factor. From what I've read, Benoit's specific crime is actually common enough that it has its own subgenre of psychopathy: it's typically called "family annihilation". Almost every single time, it follows the same exact pattern: a husband first kills his wife, then his children, then finally commits suicide. The most common similarities in the individual cases are the perpetrator drinking heavily and having a history of domestic abuse or marital difficulties, and probably some other more complicated shit that I've forgotten. But the point is, it's happened often enough that criminal psychologists are aware of the phenomenon and have even developed some nomenclature for it. And from what I understand, brain damage or "roid rage" isn't a commonality in the vast majority of these cases. It usually seems to boil down to a controlling father with a rocky marriage.

[Loss]

Re: the brain test, his brain had already started decomposing when they did the test because of the heat, which made me question the results of the test.

[Loss]

 

Didn't his brain tests show that he had the brain of a Alzheimer's patient?

I spent twenty three years working with Alzheimer's victims and none of them ever went on a murder spree.

 

 

Not to mention that keeping the travel schedule of a pro wrestler would be virtually impossible.

[NotJayTabb]

In no way, shape or form trying to compare it with Benoit, but what was the situation when Verne Gagne had Alzheimer's and was involved with the death of a fellow care home resident?

[pol]

 

Yeah, don't want to discuss this anymore, because my points are being lost anyways.

 

For the record I didn't vote for Benoit and don't watch his matches.

 

I genuinely don't believe they are, I think they're just being rejected. We know that Benoit was probably very fucked in the head, but that's not criminally insane. Very fucked in the head commits straight-up murder all the time. The law and the study of the mind both have a wide gulf between fucked in the head, hit in the head, plain old crazy angry, drunk, high, cheated on, betrayed etc and non-culpable insane. The way he committed the crimes and behaved during that time shows he was at least rational enough to have known what he was doing and chosen not to do it.

 

 

As a hard determinist I really struggle with the significance of this distinction to be honest.