Let's assume a black church burns down. "Who benefits?" after the fact, objectively in financial terms, isn't the question. It might be somebody seeking psychological satisfaction out of racist motives. That's a benefit. It might be a disgrunted parishioner getting revenge. That's a benefit. It might be a church employee or the minister faced with a truly dismal financial outlook or personal future. That's a benefit. It might be a neighbor pissed at the traffic and bad street parking during choir, Bible study, and worship-service times. That's a benefit. Or it might be a developer who wants the church land empty so he can buy it. That's a benefit. Sometimes the "benefit" was cheaper construction equipment, with no ill intent. Or a string of extension cords was overloaded. In other words, "Who benefits?" is properly answered, "Nobody."
Most of the time, though, the question is immediately answered in ways that suit the asker, not all those who might find some personal benefit. Because it's not what we think the benefit is that matters--the benefit is entirely to be seen from the perspective of the perpetrator. And while there's nothing that we armchair quarterbacks and keyboard jockeys can do, so that our opinion is perfectly pointless, we get bent out of shape--and that has effects on how we view things, on our stress levels, etc.
I find that kind of thing to be a waste of effort and energy. Then again, I find that it takes more energy and effort to get pissed off at somebody than to not get pissed off. I generally suspect most people are wired the other way around.
= new reply since forum marked as read
