Gun suicides are also a call for gun control. When england got rid of gas ovens overall suicide numbers went down because people who would have killed themselves with gas wouldn't do it through other means, if we could somehow cut down the number of guns in america most likely our overall suicide numbers would also go down.
Sorry Preach, I had to go check this out as we still most definitely have gas ovens. Apparently it's because we now use natural gas rather than gas that was rich in Carbon Monoxide
Ok so I had the particulars wrong about what kind of gas they switched from, but the statistic is the same, it was harder to kill yourself and so people stopped doing it.
It's cool Preach, it made me curious as to why this was. And now we know!
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
What they should do is anonymize manifestos and release them publicly for research into the public domain.
I agree, but maybe after 20 years or the death of the author for general public, or by special request with accreditation backing (as with most Psychological studies and datasets of a limited nature). Would allow the data to be useful for evaluative purposes in academia without allowing the individual action to be seen in a influential light.
+2
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
What they should do is anonymize manifestos and release them publicly for research into the public domain.
I agree, but maybe after 20 years or the death of the author for general public, or by special request with accreditation backing (as with most Psychological studies and datasets of a limited nature). Would allow the data to be useful for evaluative purposes in academia without allowing the individual action to be seen in a influential light.
(Un)fortunately, not all of us do data science behind institutional walls.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited August 2015
You don't need an institution to gain certification for access to limited data! You might have to join an association (APA, AAFS, AACJ) and request through the organization's IRB board. Member ship costs are negligible and if you have your ducks in a row it is very possible to get all sorts of limited data for research outside a University. Generally speaking, you have to do all that inside the university also, but the membership fees for various associations are waived by your regional institutional accreditation through your student/employment status.
It's also possible to request limited data sets without accreditation, though the vetting process typically takes a year or more because of that. The association/institution ensures accountability via their standing and reputation, so without them it takes a bit to ensure you will be using potentially harmful data in a responsible way.
I'm sure there's places for archives of this stuff, and maybe there should be, but there is no reason for this to stay up on twitter or facebook.
+8
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
Yea Twitter doesn't have to keep that shit up on their servers if they don't want to.
Besides the video is already on Liveleak and isn't going anywhere for a while. Lord knows the shooting video is hardly the most graphic thing on that site.
Am I the only person who thinks that there isn't a problem publishing portions of the manifesto? The reason he committed the crime is of significance and has value to the public.
Receiving information solely through government spokespeople increases the potential for abuse.
+1
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
You don't need an institution to gain certification for access to limited data! You might have to join an association (APA, AAFS, AACJ) and request through the organization's IRB board. Member ship costs are negligible and if you have your ducks in a row it is very possible to get all sorts of limited data for research outside a University. Generally speaking, you have to do all that inside the university also, but the membership fees for various associations are waived by your regional institutional accreditation through your student/employment status.
It's also possible to request limited data sets without accreditation, though the vetting process typically takes a year or more because of that. The association/institution ensures accountability via their standing and reputation, so without them it takes a bit to ensure you will be using potentially harmful data in a responsible way.
Yes, I see no possible way setting the precedent of banning speech we don't like, especially in connection with journalism could go wrong.
Because it's not about speech we don't like. It's about not enabling the people who commit these atrocities. As it's been pointed out, these people know that such heinous acts know that these acts act as an amplifier, allowing them to push their heinous views. Which is why there's been a concerted effort to turn the switch off, to discourage other "message" killers.
Yes, I see no possible way setting the precedent of banning speech we don't like, especially in connection with journalism could go wrong.
Because it's not about speech we don't like. It's about not enabling the people who commit these atrocities. As it's been pointed out, these people know that such heinous acts know that these acts act as an amplifier, allowing them to push their heinous views. Which is why there's been a concerted effort to turn the switch off, to discourage other "message" killers.
Pretty much. Making these people infamous only serves to encourage others. The best policy is to never mention their name and to bury their bullshit while keeping the focus on the victims in order to humanize them in the eyes of the sociopaths out there
+1
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
edited August 2015
But why push a heinous view when you know you're just going to be killed? When you're dead you're dead and you don't give a shit about anything you once thought. The guy who killed these two reporters no longer gives a shit about anything. So why do it?
Yes, I see no possible way setting the precedent of banning speech we don't like, especially in connection with journalism could go wrong.
Because it's not about speech we don't like. It's about not enabling the people who commit these atrocities. As it's been pointed out, these people know that such heinous acts know that these acts act as an amplifier, allowing them to push their heinous views. Which is why there's been a concerted effort to turn the switch off, to discourage other "message" killers.
The bolded strike me as contradictory. If it isn't about speech you don't like, why does his views being heinous matter?
Maybe his views aren't heinous, but he just picked a heinous way to act on them? How do we know without his manifesto?
Oh, and let me point out the most obnoxious of all the arguments:
Removing that information from social media doesn’t stop people from wanting to see it; it just makes them work a little harder to find cached copies of it.
Just because people want to see does not mean that Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn are somehow obligated to enable those desires. So what if they have to dig harder? The people who really want to will put in the effort, while the digital rubberneckers will be discouraged - which helps dampen the megaphone.
I absolutely hate this goosey argument, and find the people who use it to be the silliest of geese.
I think not publishing the final thoughts of people who murder others for whatever reason isn't a serious impact to freedom of speech. And I don't think anyone is really advocating for a governmental law, more like a guideline for our media not to give killers one final f you to the public they wronged.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
But why push a heinous view when you know you're just going to be killed? When you're dead you're dead and you don't give a shit about anything you once thought. The guy who killed these two reporters no longer gives a shit about anything. So why do it?
Because the US media has a nasty habit of turning mass shooters into media darlings, plastering their name and face everywhere. If there's a manifesto it'll be blasted over the airwaves. It's proven to be an easy way for crazy fuckers to get on tv.
0
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
But why push a heinous view when you know you're just going to be killed? When you're dead you're dead and you don't give a shit about anything you once thought. The guy who killed these two reporters no longer gives a shit about anything. So why do it?
Because the US media has a nasty habit of turning mass shooters into media darlings, plastering their name and face everywhere. If there's a manifesto it'll be blasted over the airwaves. It's proven to be an easy way for crazy fuckers to get on tv.
That trend has actually been reversing, as I posted earlier in the thread.
But why push a heinous view when you know you're just going to be killed? When you're dead you're dead and you don't give a shit about anything you once thought. The guy who killed these two reporters no longer gives a shit about anything. So why do it?
Despite humanity's shortsightedness, there is still a drive for affecting the future beyond oneself.
+1
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Yes, I see no possible way setting the precedent of banning speech we don't like, especially in connection with journalism could go wrong.
Because it's not about speech we don't like. It's about not enabling the people who commit these atrocities. As it's been pointed out, these people know that such heinous acts know that these acts act as an amplifier, allowing them to push their heinous views. Which is why there's been a concerted effort to turn the switch off, to discourage other "message" killers.
The bolded strike me as contradictory. If it isn't about speech you don't like, why does his views being heinous matter?
Maybe his views aren't heinous, but he just picked a heinous way to act on them? How do we know without his manifesto?
It's less contradictory and more superfluous.
Publicizing manifestos confirms that killing people will generate a lot of attention for what you say.
Not publicizing them removes that incentive (they don't need to be "banned," and in this day and age I'd argue that's probably impractical if not impossible).
Oh, and let me point out the most obnoxious of all the arguments:
Removing that information from social media doesn’t stop people from wanting to see it; it just makes them work a little harder to find cached copies of it.
Just because people want to see does not mean that Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn are somehow obligated to enable those desires. So what if they have to dig harder? The people who really want to will put in the effort, while the digital rubberneckers will be discouraged - which helps dampen the megaphone.
I absolutely hate this goosey argument, and find the people who use it to be the silliest of geese.
Even if we disagree on the manifesto, we're in agreement here. Twitter and Facebook had every right to take down those videos and his account along with them.
I think not publishing the final thoughts of people who murder others for whatever reason isn't a serious impact to freedom of speech. And I don't think anyone is really advocating for a governmental law, more like a guideline for our media not to give killers one final f you to the public they wronged.
At least we agree that government shouldn't hold back the manifesto and say, "We totally have evidence this guy murdered people for reasons, but those reasons are secret. Totally believe us guys, we're always honest".
I just happen to think the media should then report on excerpts of the manifesto to both keep the government honest and provide useful context for people to understand the tragedy.
But why push a heinous view when you know you're just going to be killed? When you're dead you're dead and you don't give a shit about anything you once thought. The guy who killed these two reporters no longer gives a shit about anything. So why do it?
Because the US media has a nasty habit of turning mass shooters into media darlings, plastering their name and face everywhere. If there's a manifesto it'll be blasted over the airwaves. It's proven to be an easy way for crazy fuckers to get on tv.
That trend has actually been reversing, as I posted earlier in the thread.
It'll take a bit before the slow change in the media's handling of these events makes a difference. It will over time and kudos to the media for slowly getting their shit together, but cause and effect are not always instant.
I don't understand where you think the government should not withhold evidence from the general public about killings. I mean its immaterial why this guy killed former co-workers. And its not some grand conspiracy, sometimes the police withhold information after a killing out of respect for the victims/their families. To me there are some things I don't believe I ever need to know, like say why some person decided it was time to film the murder of two people.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yes, I see no possible way setting the precedent of banning speech we don't like, especially in connection with journalism could go wrong.
Because it's not about speech we don't like. It's about not enabling the people who commit these atrocities. As it's been pointed out, these people know that such heinous acts know that these acts act as an amplifier, allowing them to push their heinous views. Which is why there's been a concerted effort to turn the switch off, to discourage other "message" killers.
The bolded strike me as contradictory. If it isn't about speech you don't like, why does his views being heinous matter?
Maybe his views aren't heinous, but he just picked a heinous way to act on them? How do we know without his manifesto?
It's less contradictory and more superfluous.
Publicizing manifestos confirms that killing people will generate a lot of attention for what you say.
Not publicizing them removes that incentive (they don't need to be "banned," and in this day and age I'd argue that's probably impractical if not impossible).
The counterargument to that is how the Charleston shooting got the Confederate Flag taken down from government buildings in SC.
Leaving out the specifics of the shooter's motivation would have most likely prevented that.
gjaustin on
+1
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
I don't understand where you think the government should not withhold evidence from the general public about killings. I mean its immaterial why this guy killed former co-workers. And its not some grand conspiracy, sometimes the police withhold information after a killing out of respect for the victims/their families. To me there are some things I don't believe I ever need to know, like say why some person decided it was time to film the murder of two people.
Am I the only person who thinks that there isn't a problem publishing portions of the manifesto? The reason he committed the crime is of significance and has value to the public.
Not if we're not going to have a reasonable public discussion on the issue.
And well. We aren't. And we aren't because we have had the conversation already and the answers are clear. But we are unable to achieve them.
Yes, I see no possible way setting the precedent of banning speech we don't like, especially in connection with journalism could go wrong.
1) No one is banning speech. Media organizations can make decisions about what they want to air and we are simply telling them that maybe these types of things they shouldn't air/publish.
2) We ban speech that we don't like all the damned time.
Has anyone here ever been involved in a shooting? I was the target of one when I was little. My mom's mentally ill brother tried to kill us with a rifle. The only damage was to a window, but it's the kind of memory that sticks with you.
I had someone threaten me with a gun over a chess game (no fucking joke). And I was 5 stories above a shooting that occurred in front of where I live(and i still flinch every time i hear a garbage can lid slam shut at night). Both of them were amazingly surreal.
My Sister was in the building above when that guy got on a metro bus and shot the driver (then was gunned down by police who miraculously hit no one else). I was a few blocks over when it happened. I am in the least violent segment of the socioeconomic status. My family owns no guns, my extended family owns no guns.
10 bux that we are the only people in a developed nation who are going to have a lot of stories like that. Probably because of how many knives we have.
Am I the only person who thinks that there isn't a problem publishing portions of the manifesto? The reason he committed the crime is of significance and has value to the public.
Not if we're not going to have a reasonable public discussion on the issue.
And well. We aren't. And we aren't because we have had the conversation already and the answers are clear. But we are unable to achieve them.
Again, see my point about the Charleston shootings.
I'm assuming here you're really referencing the gun control debate. Which is presumably not why he did this.
Am I the only person who thinks that there isn't a problem publishing portions of the manifesto? The reason he committed the crime is of significance and has value to the public.
Not if we're not going to have a reasonable public discussion on the issue.
And well. We aren't. And we aren't because we have had the conversation already and the answers are clear. But we are unable to achieve them.
Yes, I see no possible way setting the precedent of banning speech we don't like, especially in connection with journalism could go wrong.
1) No one is banning speech. Media organizations can make decisions about what they want to air and we are simply telling them that maybe these types of things they shouldn't air/publish.
2) We ban speech that we don't like all the damned time.
Has anyone here ever been involved in a shooting? I was the target of one when I was little. My mom's mentally ill brother tried to kill us with a rifle. The only damage was to a window, but it's the kind of memory that sticks with you.
I had someone threaten me with a gun over a chess game (no fucking joke). And I was 5 stories above a shooting that occurred in front of where I live(and i still flinch every time i hear a garbage can lid slam shut at night). Both of them were amazingly surreal.
My Sister was in the building above when that guy got on a metro bus and shot the driver (then was gunned down by police who miraculously hit no one else). I was a few blocks over when it happened. I am in the least violent segment of the socioeconomic status. My family owns no guns, my extended family owns no guns.
10 bux that we are the only people in a developed nation who are going to have a lot of stories like that. Probably because of how many knives we have.
With 100,000 shootings a year, spread out among every state, with victims and shooters in every socioeconomic bracket, it's amazing that everyone doesn't have a shooting story. I am well past the point where I could remember how to calculate the percentages, but even with 300 million+ people, you've got to have a pretty high chance of either being involved directly in one, being near enough to the the scene of one to be effected, or personally knowing someone who has been involved in one.
Yes, I see no possible way setting the precedent of banning speech we don't like, especially in connection with journalism could go wrong.
Because it's not about speech we don't like. It's about not enabling the people who commit these atrocities. As it's been pointed out, these people know that such heinous acts know that these acts act as an amplifier, allowing them to push their heinous views. Which is why there's been a concerted effort to turn the switch off, to discourage other "message" killers.
The bolded strike me as contradictory. If it isn't about speech you don't like, why does his views being heinous matter?
Maybe his views aren't heinous, but he just picked a heinous way to act on them? How do we know without his manifesto?
It's less contradictory and more superfluous.
Publicizing manifestos confirms that killing people will generate a lot of attention for what you say.
Not publicizing them removes that incentive (they don't need to be "banned," and in this day and age I'd argue that's probably impractical if not impossible).
The counterargument to that is how the Charleston shooting got the Confederate Flag taken down from government buildings in SC.
Leaving out the specifics of the shooter's motivation would have most likely prevented that.
This is an interesting point, but I think we can have the "best" of both worlds. People will still read the manifestos, that is a given. If there is some social utility to be gained from talking about parts of them, they will be talked about. I mean, I haven't read this guy's, Roof's, or Rodger's manifestos and yet I don't feel I am uninformed.
Yes, I see no possible way setting the precedent of banning speech we don't like, especially in connection with journalism could go wrong.
Because it's not about speech we don't like. It's about not enabling the people who commit these atrocities. As it's been pointed out, these people know that such heinous acts know that these acts act as an amplifier, allowing them to push their heinous views. Which is why there's been a concerted effort to turn the switch off, to discourage other "message" killers.
The bolded strike me as contradictory. If it isn't about speech you don't like, why does his views being heinous matter?
Maybe his views aren't heinous, but he just picked a heinous way to act on them? How do we know without his manifesto?
It's less contradictory and more superfluous.
Publicizing manifestos confirms that killing people will generate a lot of attention for what you say.
Not publicizing them removes that incentive (they don't need to be "banned," and in this day and age I'd argue that's probably impractical if not impossible).
The counterargument to that is how the Charleston shooting got the Confederate Flag taken down from government buildings in SC.
Leaving out the specifics of the shooter's motivation would have most likely prevented that.
This is an interesting point, but I think we can have the "best" of both worlds. People will still read the manifestos, that is a given. If there is some social utility to be gained from talking about parts of them, they will be talked about. I mean, I haven't read this guy's, Roof's, or Rodger's manifestos and yet I don't feel I am uninformed.
Publicizing them does not appear to be necessary.
So would a good compromise be making them available, but not quoting them directly on news programs?
Yes, I see no possible way setting the precedent of banning speech we don't like, especially in connection with journalism could go wrong.
Because it's not about speech we don't like. It's about not enabling the people who commit these atrocities. As it's been pointed out, these people know that such heinous acts know that these acts act as an amplifier, allowing them to push their heinous views. Which is why there's been a concerted effort to turn the switch off, to discourage other "message" killers.
The bolded strike me as contradictory. If it isn't about speech you don't like, why does his views being heinous matter?
Maybe his views aren't heinous, but he just picked a heinous way to act on them? How do we know without his manifesto?
It's less contradictory and more superfluous.
Publicizing manifestos confirms that killing people will generate a lot of attention for what you say.
Not publicizing them removes that incentive (they don't need to be "banned," and in this day and age I'd argue that's probably impractical if not impossible).
The counterargument to that is how the Charleston shooting got the Confederate Flag taken down from government buildings in SC.
Leaving out the specifics of the shooter's motivation would have most likely prevented that.
This is an interesting point, but I think we can have the "best" of both worlds. People will still read the manifestos, that is a given. If there is some social utility to be gained from talking about parts of them, they will be talked about. I mean, I haven't read this guy's, Roof's, or Rodger's manifestos and yet I don't feel I am uninformed.
Publicizing them does not appear to be necessary.
So would a good compromise be making them available, but not quoting them directly on news programs?
I could get behind that.
I wouldn't even say they need to be made (easily) available (maybe via a FOIA request or something).
Anybody who really wants to/distrusts the "official" story will still be able to find them.
Posts
It's cool Preach, it made me curious as to why this was. And now we know!
I agree, but maybe after 20 years or the death of the author for general public, or by special request with accreditation backing (as with most Psychological studies and datasets of a limited nature). Would allow the data to be useful for evaluative purposes in academia without allowing the individual action to be seen in a influential light.
(Un)fortunately, not all of us do data science behind institutional walls.
It's also possible to request limited data sets without accreditation, though the vetting process typically takes a year or more because of that. The association/institution ensures accountability via their standing and reputation, so without them it takes a bit to ensure you will be using potentially harmful data in a responsible way.
Story update: The shooter killed himself.
I'm sure there's places for archives of this stuff, and maybe there should be, but there is no reason for this to stay up on twitter or facebook.
Besides the video is already on Liveleak and isn't going anywhere for a while. Lord knows the shooting video is hardly the most graphic thing on that site.
Receiving information solely through government spokespeople increases the potential for abuse.
Can that data be used for commercial purposes?
Because it's not about speech we don't like. It's about not enabling the people who commit these atrocities. As it's been pointed out, these people know that such heinous acts know that these acts act as an amplifier, allowing them to push their heinous views. Which is why there's been a concerted effort to turn the switch off, to discourage other "message" killers.
Pretty much. Making these people infamous only serves to encourage others. The best policy is to never mention their name and to bury their bullshit while keeping the focus on the victims in order to humanize them in the eyes of the sociopaths out there
The bolded strike me as contradictory. If it isn't about speech you don't like, why does his views being heinous matter?
Maybe his views aren't heinous, but he just picked a heinous way to act on them? How do we know without his manifesto?
Just because people want to see does not mean that Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn are somehow obligated to enable those desires. So what if they have to dig harder? The people who really want to will put in the effort, while the digital rubberneckers will be discouraged - which helps dampen the megaphone.
I absolutely hate this goosey argument, and find the people who use it to be the silliest of geese.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Because the US media has a nasty habit of turning mass shooters into media darlings, plastering their name and face everywhere. If there's a manifesto it'll be blasted over the airwaves. It's proven to be an easy way for crazy fuckers to get on tv.
That trend has actually been reversing, as I posted earlier in the thread.
Despite humanity's shortsightedness, there is still a drive for affecting the future beyond oneself.
Publicizing manifestos confirms that killing people will generate a lot of attention for what you say.
Not publicizing them removes that incentive (they don't need to be "banned," and in this day and age I'd argue that's probably impractical if not impossible).
At least we agree that government shouldn't hold back the manifesto and say, "We totally have evidence this guy murdered people for reasons, but those reasons are secret. Totally believe us guys, we're always honest".
I just happen to think the media should then report on excerpts of the manifesto to both keep the government honest and provide useful context for people to understand the tragedy.
It'll take a bit before the slow change in the media's handling of these events makes a difference. It will over time and kudos to the media for slowly getting their shit together, but cause and effect are not always instant.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The counterargument to that is how the Charleston shooting got the Confederate Flag taken down from government buildings in SC.
Leaving out the specifics of the shooter's motivation would have most likely prevented that.
They usually leave out details, not motive.
They're looking for media exposure and an audience to their rationale for doing what they did. They don't need that.
Not if we're not going to have a reasonable public discussion on the issue.
And well. We aren't. And we aren't because we have had the conversation already and the answers are clear. But we are unable to achieve them.
1) No one is banning speech. Media organizations can make decisions about what they want to air and we are simply telling them that maybe these types of things they shouldn't air/publish.
2) We ban speech that we don't like all the damned time.
I had someone threaten me with a gun over a chess game (no fucking joke). And I was 5 stories above a shooting that occurred in front of where I live(and i still flinch every time i hear a garbage can lid slam shut at night). Both of them were amazingly surreal.
My Sister was in the building above when that guy got on a metro bus and shot the driver (then was gunned down by police who miraculously hit no one else). I was a few blocks over when it happened. I am in the least violent segment of the socioeconomic status. My family owns no guns, my extended family owns no guns.
10 bux that we are the only people in a developed nation who are going to have a lot of stories like that. Probably because of how many knives we have.
Again, see my point about the Charleston shootings.
I'm assuming here you're really referencing the gun control debate. Which is presumably not why he did this.
Confirmed as Donald Rumsfeld.
With 100,000 shootings a year, spread out among every state, with victims and shooters in every socioeconomic bracket, it's amazing that everyone doesn't have a shooting story. I am well past the point where I could remember how to calculate the percentages, but even with 300 million+ people, you've got to have a pretty high chance of either being involved directly in one, being near enough to the the scene of one to be effected, or personally knowing someone who has been involved in one.
Publicizing them does not appear to be necessary.
Eh, maybe let's not go that far.
So would a good compromise be making them available, but not quoting them directly on news programs?
I could get behind that.
They don't. Dead people in the U.S. don't have any rights.
Anybody who really wants to/distrusts the "official" story will still be able to find them.