How would you have the media reigned in? What does "reigned in" mean?
I
Printable View
How would you have the media reigned in? What does "reigned in" mean?
I
Minimal coverage. If the doesn't have the effect that these people want, they won't do it, or at least will be deterred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Then again, they might turn to other crimes, such as animal murders. Who wants to see 20 kittens killed? Not me.
Fixing the healthcare system, making it more available or whatever they need to do, will provide a much better solution then restricting guns or restricting media, IMO.
So, an edict specifically prescribing a procedure to be followed with respect to mass killings? Interesting.Quote:
Minimal coverage. If the doesn't have the effect that these people want, they won't do it, or at least will be deterred.
Sure.Quote:
Fixing the healthcare system, making it more available or whatever they need to do, will provide a much better solution then restricting guns or restricting media, IMO.
No idea if you're being sarcastic with the second part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The first one.
The idea behind minimal coverage/SOP of these crimes is so they aren't as widely recognised and given so much attention. A fair number of these people do it to be remembered and other things already discussed in this thread. If they don't get that response they get ignored essentially, which will deter other psychos from doing that, because it will not achieve the message that they wish to send.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
However, now that I think about it, I realise this is a terrible way to go about it, as they may simply perform a different crime, or do it anyway, and we would be trivialising the murder of children and others. That is something I don't think should happen.
Logistics of state prescription and proscription - beyond profane diction - and ideological implications.
Do I look like an english major? Dumb it down for me. :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The US government has difficulty even preventing some channels of news media from publishing classified documents.
What would it mean for other areas of government-media relationship if the government could here, in the name of public safety, legislate a particular format for reporting on specific acts, and penalize deviation?
Could not this same pretext be used for every other category or aspect of reporting on crime, or reporting on anything at all? Would it not become obligatory? Shouldn't it, even?
It's perhaps an overly onerous burden to place on a Western state in its current manifestation.
You might refer to the successful promulgation of anti Holocaust-denial laws in parts of Europe, but these are aimed at preventing a very specific sort of expression entirely and not tightly regulating overall discourse. Further, all it requires from a government is to grant authority to law enforcement to target instances of the forbidden speech, not to design a specially conceived format prescribed to an institution. Of course, reporting on killings at all could always be forbidden wholesale. That would have interesting consequences...
But I'm afraid I'm not making myself clear. The one-liner is probably a better summary and guide for your imagination.
I wasn't suggesting the Government do the "reining in" - it is best for the Government to stay out of free speech and the media - it would be better if the Media reined itself in via self regulation (or better a independent body)
as to how the reining should be handled - the youtube clips summed it up perfectly - keep it low key - focus on the tragedy and the victims - don't put pictures of the killer up at all in fact make him a foot note
the problem is the "cult" of the killer the media creates - we focus entirely on the story of the killer trying to find out why - all the time putting his face on TV which builds the "Hero complex" - which in a lot of cases is EXACTLY what the killer wanted
I am under no illusions - the chances of the Media reining itself in is small - there is too much money in it
This just made my decision to buy the S&W chambered in .223 a whole lot easier. I urge everyone who has ever wanted to own a gun to go out and buy one now if you ever plan to. Sometimes I feel like Barack Obama is the most effective gun salesman I've ever seen.
Everyone who is over the age of 21 should carry, 24/7, barring those with serious mental illness, violent criminal history or credibly threatening behavior.
I am not a history major, so perhaps they were greedy bastards. However, the logic behind the post I criticized is still lacking in that the motivations of the Revolutionaries are somehow meant to invalidate the validity of the 2nd amendment. It seems to a be post amounting to attacking the man (men in this case) rather than the argument, which he clearly admits he doesn't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
EDIT: Back on topic, this is not a problem that government can cure. No government policy will change social stigmas surrounding mental illness, no government policy will promote family, friends and strangers to lend a helping hand to others or to even be on the look out for symptoms of such problems.
Was listening to the radio and a father was talking about how he will explain the massacre to his son. It was summed up more or less as, "well son, there are just some sick people out there who do bad things."
Indeed, this is what our culture treats these incidents. Some people are "just sick" and they "happen" and that's that. And we continue to be shocked and confused when they "happen" again.
--Newtown Shooting No Surprise, We've Systematically Removed God From Schools--
- Mike Huckabee
Could you kill this man for me please? I am sure he thinks he's a respectable person but imho he deserves to have every bone in his body snapped for trying to hijack these events for his own gain. Bah, disgusting. Truly. FU&die
ACIN, your argument is laughable because you want to make America more socialist, that's no different from reducing gun ownership in terms of eroding fundamental american values.
Altruistic != socialistQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Try again. This time by using words that are actual synonyms.
Capitalism is about caring only about finishing first, about opimizing and if you're not optimal you get left behind and told that you "fail at life".Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
There are some good things about that in general but also some bad ones. There are also altruistic capitalists but I don't really see many of them so please explain how altruism fits with caring only about winners.
Well when you only see the world through a Marxist point of view you can't. But in the real world people can be both competitive in business and caring in their personal lives at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It's as if people are more than just their modes of production. But like I said, you can't see what Karl Marx doesn't believe exists.
I never said it's not possible, I said it hardly seems to happen in America because people are too preoccupied with being great.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Intellectual scrutiny of capitalism is the realisation that their intellectual kung-fu isn't of any use in the real world. Socialism is a great comfort zone for the useless who wish things were always like things were on university.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
And mass shootings are great to remind people like you that there are downsides to your world view as well, whether you like it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Nothing about anybody's worldview or political affiliation where this can be pinned upon, this is just someone who's insane. These things happen everywhere there is no system in the world that can prevent people from going nuts. There is no explanation and there is no cure. Just a fact of life that these things can happen. If you are sane you will never understand insanity. Nobody did anything wrong it's just a major tragedy. It can happen everywhere no need for any soul-searching.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Many of these people are outcasts of some sort who feel they have nothing to lose anymore, calling them insane is just an easy explanation for people who don't want to think about it or reconsider anything.
Then again if you think it's normal, why are you so shocked and sad? If you're saying it's essentially no different from the 500 traffic deaths every year then there's no reason to be any more sorry over this than over the 500 dead people from traffic accidents every year.
As you said, they are outcasts. There is nothing that can be done about outcasts, in ANY system they will always exist. Predictably people start claiming this for their own uses, lack of god, lack of gun control, too much liberal upbringing, too much conservative upbringing, whatever suits them. Stop claiming it. There is NOTHING that will stop this from happening again as there will always be people who lose it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
What can be done is to make people stop casting others out. We've stopped casting gays out of society, why can't we stop casting geeks and other "strange" people out? We still haven't cast you out of this forum either so don't say it's impossible not to do. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
We stopped lawful discrimisation of gays, the social stigma remains, just changing the laws means little to their everyday life. Look! We put it on paper everything is different from now on, twelve a'clock let's lunch. That's a reality that only exists on paper, it has nothing to do with the harrasment gay couples still endure. When complaining about said harrasment they get to read a piece of paper, as if that helps them to have it on paper. It's a reality that only exists on paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Horrible tragedies are just a fact of life. Sometimes someone will snap. That isn't very fun but what do you suggest?
States should pass a law allowing concealed carry in formerly no carry zones. It should be sort of like the Air Marshall system; with a few weeks of training, school staff are allowed to bring small firearms to class, concealed, IWB, with a heavy police grade trigger, a. Level 3 holster and they should be asked not to discuss the fact with anyone.
You'll never be able to stop rampages, but you must be able to reduce death toll. Like it or not, kids are sheep and cannot defend themselves. When faced with these situations, they need responsible adults to protect them more reliably than this
The social stigma is much lower today than it was in 1950 for example, these changes obviously do take some time. That's why it's better to start now than to keep talking about how doing this or that now will not yield immediate results next year. That sort of thinking only works for turbo capitalists and housing bubbles. The recognition of blacks in the USA for example also took a long time, if they had gone and kept your attitude, they could still be slaves now. It's absolutely true that you cannot change some attitudes over night but just accepting that never helped anyone. I thought the great strength of America is that it takes issues and relentlessly works towards improvement, no?
[Cynic_mode]Only if the improvement makes more money than the current situation. [/Cynic_mode]
Husar is correct in that social stigmas can change. But it takes time and more importantly, it takes a dialogue in order for progress to be made. This is why I was mad yesterday about the thread and much of the public dialogue focusing on guns instead of the healthcare issue. If people are not even talking about this aspect of it, no progress will be made. And in fact that is what has happened at least since Columbine, everyone talks about guns and we have had no social progress on mental illness, so the mentally ill continue to attack after years of non treatment.
And what exactly do you actually think that can be done about some people being outcasts. People shouldn't think that tragedies like this can be prevented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar