I e-mailed the Sun, Times and Telegraph to politely ask that they not publish that kind of shock value footage as part of this kind of story in the future, and recommend others do the same if they have a spare moment.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I keep trying to think of something to add to this thread, other than my obvious disgust and sadness at yet another horrific incident like this.
Then I keep remembering that this is such a reoccurring thing, that I've literally said anything of value in the past and there is no point in repeating it. The only thing I am going to do is - however ineffective - make a complaint to the publications who disgustingly played the killers video on their front pages on fucking AUTOPLAY. What the fuck is wrong with them?
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
The most surreal thing is that the killer did not actually fire until about 17 seconds after the point that screen grab was taken. It felt like he was invisible, just a camera floating around in an FPS.
The most surreal thing is that the killer did not actually fire until about 17 seconds after the point that screen grab was taken. It felt like he was invisible, just a camera floating around in an FPS.
It really was eery as fuck. At first I thought it may even have been some kind of sick parody, so strange was it that they didn't see him standing there pointing the gun at them.
Racial violence has been good for ratings/circulation in the past, and if you look up Drudge's old USENET posts he's a big Turner Diaries fan.
After however many months of BLM, this will get play on the right.
The story should get traction everywhere because it's terrorism. The killer carefully filmed a pre-meditated execution with the intention of making the audience disgusted and afraid.
This BBC article is interesting. It's less about the shooting, and more about the effects of watching the footage.
Anyone who watched any of the footage is likely to be upset, according to psychologist and trauma expert Christine Courtois.
She says people's reactions to this type of experience vary from being shocked and startled, to being preoccupied by what happened. Others may find themselves temporarily depressed or disorientated, or have trouble sleeping. The important thing to realise is all of these reactions are normal, and help is out there if people need it, or it develops into something more serious like acute stress disorder.
Some people may be more susceptible than others, Courtois points out. Those who have their own history of trauma, or have had a sudden loss recently, for example.
Within that article was a picture, and I think that that picture has actually affected me more than the newscast footage (I haven't seen the shooter POV video, and have no interest in seeing it):
It affected me more than the newscast video because it made the two dead victims into real people for me.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
The most surreal thing is that the killer did not actually fire until about 17 seconds after the point that screen grab was taken. It felt like he was invisible, just a camera floating around in an FPS.
It really was eery as fuck. At first I thought it may even have been some kind of sick parody, so strange was it that they didn't see him standing there pointing the gun at them.
Yeah, apparently he knew he'd get away with that. Phillishere explained why.
What's amazing in the video is how damn close he got to them without them noticing. With a gun drawn!
Also for the morbidly curious, the video isn't bloody, just creepy.
Not that weird if you've done the job, especially for a live shot. It's basically like being in a play - the cameraman is completely focused on steadily panning the environmental shot, the reporter and subject are focused on keeping a good flow of questions and answers. It's a lot like being on a stage, since you know you can't edit any flubs and any serious screw-up is going to live forever on Youtube.
The shooter knew this. That's why he is so casual about coming up to them with a drawn gun.
That the shooter could sneak up on his victims without them noticing is not surprising at all. It is really easy to sneak up on someone who is focused on a specific task. Especially if they are not expecting you
Dunder on
0
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
This BBC article is interesting. It's less about the shooting, and more about the effects of watching the footage.
Anyone who watched any of the footage is likely to be upset, according to psychologist and trauma expert Christine Courtois.
She says people's reactions to this type of experience vary from being shocked and startled, to being preoccupied by what happened. Others may find themselves temporarily depressed or disorientated, or have trouble sleeping. The important thing to realise is all of these reactions are normal, and help is out there if people need it, or it develops into something more serious like acute stress disorder.
Some people may be more susceptible than others, Courtois points out. Those who have their own history of trauma, or have had a sudden loss recently, for example.
I remember an article from a few years ago that there was some study that indicated that repeated viewing of news stories could cause (relatively mild) PTSD. I think it was in connection to 9/11, when for a week or two it seemed all you saw on TV was video of the attacks.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
And remember, even if they did notice him, they're trained to ignore people.
You can probably imagine that live crews CONSTANTLY have people just wandering up. Some watch because its TV, some want to say hi, some want an autograph, some want to yell a swear word or make a goofy face behind the reporter. They probably had people approach them live like that a thousand times before.
I still am so jumbled up inside thinking about this.
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
0
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I'm glad someone brought up the question of the POV video because I was curious but not sure how to broach the subject. Full disclosure, I watched the first video which ends right as the shooter points the gun at the first victim. I felt shocked and horrified and did not watch the second clip despite having sought it out to begin with.
That said, I'm curious at the reaction of people here and presumably elsewhere to report the shooter's Twitter account, presumably with the aim of stopping the dissemination of the video. At the time, I imagined that the police might want his account live while they were still pursuing him although I'm sure Twitter has the capacity to 'shadowban' users just like Reddit, where the banned party does not see a change and can still submit content which is then invisible to other users. Now, the release of the footage has happened and it would be impossible to stop it from being available. Of course that's not to say that any given website is obligated to host the video of a literal murderer showing his committing a murder, but I'd like to hear from people who think that sites ought to block the video of their own volition and for what reasons. Should Twitter block reposts of the video from other users? What is the effect that this video may have, both generally as well as in edge cases?
Tagging posters who I saw talking about reporting the video to Twitter, in case they would like to weigh in.
Twitter really have no obligation to host a snuff video if they don't want to. And I'm sure their TOS has something about not posting offensive content which this pretty clearly is.
If sites like Twitter refuse to show snuff films as a matter of policy, it will serve as a disincentive for crazy people to create snuff films.
Even if you suppose that it won't be a disincentive for actual murders, the posting of such videos is traumatic for thousands of people, particularly the loved ones of the victims.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+21
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Actually Twitter specifically allows offensive content unless it violates their rules, none of which seem to apply, which is why I was asking for an interpretation - I think people are assuming that Twitter has a stated position which they do not.
I'm glad someone brought up the question of the POV video because I was curious but not sure how to broach the subject. Full disclosure, I watched the first video which ends right as the shooter points the gun at the first victim. I felt shocked and horrified and did not watch the second clip despite having sought it out to begin with.
That said, I'm curious at the reaction of people here and presumably elsewhere to report the shooter's Twitter account, presumably with the aim of stopping the dissemination of the video. At the time, I imagined that the police might want his account live while they were still pursuing him although I'm sure Twitter has the capacity to 'shadowban' users just like Reddit, where the banned party does not see a change and can still submit content which is then invisible to other users. Now, the release of the footage has happened and it would be impossible to stop it from being available. Of course that's not to say that any given website is obligated to host the video of a literal murderer showing his committing a murder, but I'd like to hear from people who think that sites ought to block the video of their own volition and for what reasons. Should Twitter block reposts of the video from other users? What is the effect that this video may have, both generally as well as in edge cases?
Tagging posters who I saw talking about reporting the video to Twitter, in case they would like to weigh in.
It is a video showing someone knowingly engaging in illegal actions with severe negative consequences for innocent victims. Yes Twitter should block reposts.
Actually Twitter specifically allows offensive content unless it violates their rules, none of which seem to apply, which is why I was asking for an interpretation - I think people are assuming that Twitter has a stated position which they do not.
I assume there's a rule that doesn't really allow "illegal" activity in videos.
Sort of like making a video of you doing drugs probably will get removed, so will committing first degree murder, or child porn, etc.
They probably give stuff like titties and doing stupid shit a free pass, because you can't police everything that people find offensive.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Actually Twitter specifically allows offensive content unless it violates their rules, none of which seem to apply, which is why I was asking for an interpretation - I think people are assuming that Twitter has a stated position which they do not.
Actually Twitter specifically allows offensive content unless it violates their rules, none of which seem to apply, which is why I was asking for an interpretation - I think people are assuming that Twitter has a stated position which they do not.
I am a little curious how, for example, they square the practice of allowing ISIS to have a Twitter account while banning this one. I suspect the answer is that allowing major players in foreign politics (no matter how loathsome) to post on Twitter, they are putting their brand at the center of the conversation in ways they like. Letting lone gunman post doesn't build the brand in the same way.
I'm glad someone brought up the question of the POV video because I was curious but not sure how to broach the subject. Full disclosure, I watched the first video which ends right as the shooter points the gun at the first victim. I felt shocked and horrified and did not watch the second clip despite having sought it out to begin with.
That said, I'm curious at the reaction of people here and presumably elsewhere to report the shooter's Twitter account, presumably with the aim of stopping the dissemination of the video. At the time, I imagined that the police might want his account live while they were still pursuing him although I'm sure Twitter has the capacity to 'shadowban' users just like Reddit, where the banned party does not see a change and can still submit content which is then invisible to other users. Now, the release of the footage has happened and it would be impossible to stop it from being available. Of course that's not to say that any given website is obligated to host the video of a literal murderer showing his committing a murder, but I'd like to hear from people who think that sites ought to block the video of their own volition and for what reasons. Should Twitter block reposts of the video from other users? What is the effect that this video may have, both generally as well as in edge cases?
Tagging posters who I saw talking about reporting the video to Twitter, in case they would like to weigh in.
That is up to the individual companies. If they did not remove the video i would of closed my twitter account because that is just morbid and I would rather not associate with it. I am a person that chooses to not shop at certain places due to their views. Voting with your dollars and all that.
I think twitter should be working towards a way to automate this but because there is so much volume perhaps the report function is "good enough." I did not watch the videos btw it started to autoplay and i just scrolled down and reported it.
edit: This video may not be the lynchpin but I have been considering closing my account on twitter due to it just being a poor platform.
Possibly. It might be ideologically inconsistent by some metric, but in this case I'm hard pressed to care.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I kind of think people should be watching the video so they can see the real ugliness of actual violence. If more people were aware of the gross reality of our gun culture / mental health infrastructure they might be more inclined to do something about it. This shit happens every single day and it's not going to change until people come to real terms with it.
I kind of think people should be watching the video so they can see the real ugliness of actual violence. If more people were aware of the gross reality of our gun culture / mental health infrastructure they might be more inclined to do something about it. This shit happens every single day and it's not going to change until people come to real terms with it.
Don't totally buy this, but there is one important realization that can come from watching these type of videos. Gun violence is so fast, so surreal, and so initially confusing that no one can adequately prepare for it. If every one of the victims had been strapped with a dozen guns and had years of training with them, there still isn't anything they could have done to protect themselves in the fleeting seconds between the first shot and the last.
Well I don't need to see it to already come to terms with the stark reality. I really fucking don't.
I don't think most people in D&D are who we think of when we think of "the people who need to actually see the consequences of their 2nd amendment ideology". Maybe this'll reach some of them, maybe it won't, but we've done so many other pleas in so many other forms, only for them to not care and double down.
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I kind of think people should be watching the video so they can see the real ugliness of actual violence. If more people were aware of the gross reality of our gun culture / mental health infrastructure they might be more inclined to do something about it. This shit happens every single day and it's not going to change until people come to real terms with it.
Don't totally buy this, but there is one important realization that can come from watching these type of videos. Gun violence is so fast, so surreal, and so initially confusing that no one can adequately prepare for it. If every one of the victims had been strapped with a dozen guns and had years of training with them, there still isn't anything they could have done to protect themselves in the fleeting seconds between the first shot and the last.
It's so quick and so sad.
I bet the cockface knew it was their last day too.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I kind of think people should be watching the video so they can see the real ugliness of actual violence. If more people were aware of the gross reality of our gun culture / mental health infrastructure they might be more inclined to do something about it. This shit happens every single day and it's not going to change until people come to real terms with it.
Don't totally buy this, but there is one important realization that can come from watching these type of videos. Gun violence is so fast, so surreal, and so initially confusing that no one can adequately prepare for it. If every one of the victims had been strapped with a dozen guns and had years of training with them, there still isn't anything they could have done to protect themselves in the fleeting seconds between the first shot and the last.
It's so quick and so sad.
I bet the cockface knew it was their last day too.
That's the whole reason he went there was to kill them.
+2
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Actually Twitter specifically allows offensive content unless it violates their rules, none of which seem to apply, which is why I was asking for an interpretation - I think people are assuming that Twitter has a stated position which they do not.
I assume there's a rule that doesn't really allow "illegal" activity in videos.
Sort of like making a video of you doing drugs probably will get removed, so will committing first degree murder, or child porn, etc.
They probably give stuff like titties and doing stupid shit a free pass, because you can't police everything that people find offensive.
None of these assumptions are true. CP is specifically illegal.
I watched the full video and I have to say the part the short clip shows is actually the worst part. The video ending with the gun being pointed is far more "horrifying", I felt, than seeing the entire thing, probably because of the anxiety it instills and the way it invites your imagination to take over at that point.
Posts
Quite so.
Please read this post as the sound of me banging my head against my desk.
Repeatedly.
Hard.
Steam | XBL
Sometimes such complaints are taken seriously.
e2:soz.
Then I keep remembering that this is such a reoccurring thing, that I've literally said anything of value in the past and there is no point in repeating it. The only thing I am going to do is - however ineffective - make a complaint to the publications who disgustingly played the killers video on their front pages on fucking AUTOPLAY. What the fuck is wrong with them?
After however many months of BLM, this will get play on the right.
Boy howdy that made me feel ill
Want to play co-op games? Feel free to hit me up!
It really was eery as fuck. At first I thought it may even have been some kind of sick parody, so strange was it that they didn't see him standing there pointing the gun at them.
Steam: adamjnet
The story should get traction everywhere because it's terrorism. The killer carefully filmed a pre-meditated execution with the intention of making the audience disgusted and afraid.
Thank you.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34047643
This BBC article is interesting. It's less about the shooting, and more about the effects of watching the footage.
Within that article was a picture, and I think that that picture has actually affected me more than the newscast footage (I haven't seen the shooter POV video, and have no interest in seeing it):
It affected me more than the newscast video because it made the two dead victims into real people for me.
Yeah, apparently he knew he'd get away with that. Phillishere explained why.
I remember an article from a few years ago that there was some study that indicated that repeated viewing of news stories could cause (relatively mild) PTSD. I think it was in connection to 9/11, when for a week or two it seemed all you saw on TV was video of the attacks.
You can probably imagine that live crews CONSTANTLY have people just wandering up. Some watch because its TV, some want to say hi, some want an autograph, some want to yell a swear word or make a goofy face behind the reporter. They probably had people approach them live like that a thousand times before.
I still am so jumbled up inside thinking about this.
That said, I'm curious at the reaction of people here and presumably elsewhere to report the shooter's Twitter account, presumably with the aim of stopping the dissemination of the video. At the time, I imagined that the police might want his account live while they were still pursuing him although I'm sure Twitter has the capacity to 'shadowban' users just like Reddit, where the banned party does not see a change and can still submit content which is then invisible to other users. Now, the release of the footage has happened and it would be impossible to stop it from being available. Of course that's not to say that any given website is obligated to host the video of a literal murderer showing his committing a murder, but I'd like to hear from people who think that sites ought to block the video of their own volition and for what reasons. Should Twitter block reposts of the video from other users? What is the effect that this video may have, both generally as well as in edge cases?
Tagging posters who I saw talking about reporting the video to Twitter, in case they would like to weigh in.
@Phasen @Desktop Hippie
Even if you suppose that it won't be a disincentive for actual murders, the posting of such videos is traumatic for thousands of people, particularly the loved ones of the victims.
It is a video showing someone knowingly engaging in illegal actions with severe negative consequences for innocent victims. Yes Twitter should block reposts.
I assume there's a rule that doesn't really allow "illegal" activity in videos.
Sort of like making a video of you doing drugs probably will get removed, so will committing first degree murder, or child porn, etc.
They probably give stuff like titties and doing stupid shit a free pass, because you can't police everything that people find offensive.
It's Rule 0 - management's discretion always applies.
I am a little curious how, for example, they square the practice of allowing ISIS to have a Twitter account while banning this one. I suspect the answer is that allowing major players in foreign politics (no matter how loathsome) to post on Twitter, they are putting their brand at the center of the conversation in ways they like. Letting lone gunman post doesn't build the brand in the same way.
That is up to the individual companies. If they did not remove the video i would of closed my twitter account because that is just morbid and I would rather not associate with it. I am a person that chooses to not shop at certain places due to their views. Voting with your dollars and all that.
I think twitter should be working towards a way to automate this but because there is so much volume perhaps the report function is "good enough." I did not watch the videos btw it started to autoplay and i just scrolled down and reported it.
edit: This video may not be the lynchpin but I have been considering closing my account on twitter due to it just being a poor platform.
Don't totally buy this, but there is one important realization that can come from watching these type of videos. Gun violence is so fast, so surreal, and so initially confusing that no one can adequately prepare for it. If every one of the victims had been strapped with a dozen guns and had years of training with them, there still isn't anything they could have done to protect themselves in the fleeting seconds between the first shot and the last.
I don't think most people in D&D are who we think of when we think of "the people who need to actually see the consequences of their 2nd amendment ideology". Maybe this'll reach some of them, maybe it won't, but we've done so many other pleas in so many other forms, only for them to not care and double down.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
It's so quick and so sad.
I bet the cockface knew it was their last day too.
That's the whole reason he went there was to kill them.
None of these assumptions are true. CP is specifically illegal.
If they don't want to do that, then they won't.