Author Topic: More shootings...are the media creating more?  (Read 58472 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20130
  • Gender: Male
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1960 on: May 24, 2018, 11:02:48 AM »
I can't help but notice that this is an entirely white phenomenon. Not just white shooters, but they seem to happen in predominantly white suburban schools. I'm not entirely sure why that matters, but it does hint to me, even further, that entitlement is going to be a real factor in all of these.

I've said before, and will undoubtedly have to say again, that I believe that once we have a more complete understanding, they will find that there isn't a world of difference between the psychology of the kids that walked into Parkland or Santa Fe and the dude's that flew those planes into the World Trade Center.  Or the dudes that stormed La Bataclan.  It's not at all about "war fetishes" or "gun access".  It's about an undissipated rage and frustration that vents itself - one way or another - like that volcano in Hawai'i.

It's possible that this is why we don't see these kind of incidents in the inner cities that are known for their gangs and violence. Life on the streets is a life of constant frustration and venting. It never bottles up to the point where someone snaps and decides to kill 20 children.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20634
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1961 on: May 24, 2018, 11:39:29 AM »
I can't help but notice that this is an entirely white phenomenon. Not just white shooters, but they seem to happen in predominantly white suburban schools. I'm not entirely sure why that matters, but it does hint to me, even further, that entitlement is going to be a real factor in all of these.

I've said before, and will undoubtedly have to say again, that I believe that once we have a more complete understanding, they will find that there isn't a world of difference between the psychology of the kids that walked into Parkland or Santa Fe and the dude's that flew those planes into the World Trade Center.  Or the dudes that stormed La Bataclan.  It's not at all about "war fetishes" or "gun access".  It's about an undissipated rage and frustration that vents itself - one way or another - like that volcano in Hawai'i.

It's possible that this is why we don't see these kind of incidents in the inner cities that are known for their gangs and violence. Life on the streets is a life of constant frustration and venting. It never bottles up to the point where someone snaps and decides to kill 20 children.
I'm thinking it has to do with the acceptance that much of what they're told is bullshit. I think they learn from experience that they can't have everything they want. There's no entitlement and no disillusionment.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20130
  • Gender: Male
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1962 on: May 24, 2018, 12:04:28 PM »


Is there a correlation between Muslims and guns that I'm missing?

Online kaos2900

  • Posts: 2345
  • Gender: Male
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1963 on: May 24, 2018, 12:19:46 PM »
That picture looks totally photo shopped to me.

Offline SwedishGoose

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 1250
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1964 on: May 24, 2018, 12:22:35 PM »


Is there a correlation between Muslims and guns that I'm missing?

Well... muslims are not shooting up your schools?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1965 on: May 24, 2018, 02:37:30 PM »
I can't help but notice that this is an entirely white phenomenon. Not just white shooters, but they seem to happen in predominantly white suburban schools. I'm not entirely sure why that matters, but it does hint to me, even further, that entitlement is going to be a real factor in all of these.

I've said before, and will undoubtedly have to say again, that I believe that once we have a more complete understanding, they will find that there isn't a world of difference between the psychology of the kids that walked into Parkland or Santa Fe and the dude's that flew those planes into the World Trade Center.  Or the dudes that stormed La Bataclan.  It's not at all about "war fetishes" or "gun access".  It's about an undissipated rage and frustration that vents itself - one way or another - like that volcano in Hawai'i.
Or all of the guys who marched to Mosul, lured by the promise of a never ending stream of Yazidi tail. I've said this all along. But what do they have in common with some white kid from suburban Florida? Seems they'd have more in common with some inner-city black kid. Perhaps it's not so much entitlement but disillusionment.

El Barto, I promise you I am not being flip or cavalier here, but what they have in common is the human brain; it only has so many ways of coping.   And one of the ways is that it erupts in anger and violence.   We see this on almost every level.   How many times have you seen a player like a Gronkowski that is late in the third quarter hasn't caught a pass because of excellent coverage and scheming, and then takes a shitty 15-yard penalty out of sheer frustration?  Or that guitar player that fiddles with his amp for 1 1/2 of a 2 hour show and finally hurls his guitar into the stage because it's just not working (watch Blackmore in the '74 California Jam show where he does exactly that, although it's over a camera guy in his face the whole show, not the sound).   

I think what I'm saying (and I have reason to believe you probably are mostly in agreement with me here, at least conceptually) is that the methods are different for different people.  Not everyone reacts the same.  I walk away, but I find I drink more in times of stress.  I know a guy (he's NOT a friend, in fact my stepson and I have joked about tuning him up at some point) he fucks.   He literally will get sex however and where ever he can, including his girlfriends friends, and his male friends girlfriends.  It's almost a sickness.  He gets high and hits on the women around him (it helps that the self-esteem of all the girls in that circle that I know personally could fit into Tony Iommi's finger caps).   Others turn to music; it's not a mistake that many, MANY famous musicians were NOT the captain of the high school football team back then, but channeled their rage into their music. 

I think you see signs of this all over America today and we're oblivious to it, because not all the signs translate into dead children.   I think this incessant need to be all over social media is part of it.  I think the opioid epidemic is part of it.  I think the bullying in schools is part of it (and it's a cyclical part of it).   I've written about this before; the US leads the world in women on antidepressants; I've written about this before, but when I got divorced, I went on Match for a spell.  I am not a good looking man, I don't bring Ben Affleck/Leo DiCaprio skills to the table, but that 30 to 40 year old female demographic was almost like shooting fish in a barrel, excluse the pun.  Not all of them, not even most of them, but a shocking number of women in that age, coming out of a relationship where they realized that the stallion from high school is a turd as an adult, and facing the other side of the hill, and in talking with some of these women, it was clear to me it is/was a PROFOUNDLY frustrating experience.   With no conscience and a little bit of diligence*, I easily could have had a one-night stand once or twice a week.    It's all like a flywheel, turning and turning and compounding and compounding and building and building... until it gets released.  Since 2000, there are 200 roughly instances of that being released in the form of bullets at or near a school.    What about the other 60 million people (my rough estimate of the number of males under the age of 30 in America; I can use under 18 if you want, which I know to be just less than half of 75 million, or about 37 million)?


* Meaning, spending time online messaging women; I don't mean "diligence" as in persistence or not taking no for an answer; that's my point.  There was no need to get into #MeToo territory; it wasn't necessary.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2018, 02:43:40 PM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1966 on: May 24, 2018, 02:48:42 PM »
No, noone has said that if you take away the gun you take away the violence.
If you take away the easy access to guns you do put hurdles in front of the would be perpetrator. Hurdles that might give the authorities the chance to stop him or give him time to cool down...
Some acts of violence can be stopped if you take away the gun.
It is soo easy to stand away and pull the trigger. Someone who is capable of doing that is not automatically capable of stabbing people with a sword or a knife for instance...

I understand your position very well.  I get it.  I disagree with it as a policy platform moving forward.   

The next step is not "de-escalate", the next step is "escalate".   The woman - blanking on her name, but incredibly smart, dare I say, attractive, and served as Presidenti Obama's Homeland Security Director for a spell - said just that on CNN in the wake of the Santa Fe shooting.   She was incredibly eloquent - far more eloquent than I - but she said, in a nutshell, what I've been saying here.   She's for some reasonable administrative measures - the usual; background checks, licensing, close the gunshow loopholes - but she very clearly and very adamantly said "we've got to find out why these kids are doing these things, because we can already see that it's escalating."    NONE of the "common sense" measures would have prevented Santa Fe.  They did EVERYTHING right (well, except for that dad.  "Honey, how about a gun cabinet for Christmas?"), and it still happened. 

EDIT: Her name is Juliette Kayyem.  I had the title wrong: she was Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs in Homeland, under Janet Napolitano and Jeh Johnson. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1967 on: May 24, 2018, 02:56:03 PM »
I can't help but notice that this is an entirely white phenomenon. Not just white shooters, but they seem to happen in predominantly white suburban schools. I'm not entirely sure why that matters, but it does hint to me, even further, that entitlement is going to be a real factor in all of these.

I've said before, and will undoubtedly have to say again, that I believe that once we have a more complete understanding, they will find that there isn't a world of difference between the psychology of the kids that walked into Parkland or Santa Fe and the dude's that flew those planes into the World Trade Center.  Or the dudes that stormed La Bataclan.  It's not at all about "war fetishes" or "gun access".  It's about an undissipated rage and frustration that vents itself - one way or another - like that volcano in Hawai'i.

It's possible that this is why we don't see these kind of incidents in the inner cities that are known for their gangs and violence. Life on the streets is a life of constant frustration and venting. It never bottles up to the point where someone snaps and decides to kill 20 children.
I'm thinking it has to do with the acceptance that much of what they're told is bullshit. I think they learn from experience that they can't have everything they want. There's no entitlement and no disillusionment.

I think there's truth in that.  I don't mean to be flip, but it's hard to be disillusioned if you have no expectations to begin with.  Broad strokes, but still.    Thomas Freidman, in his book "From Beirut To Jerusalem" (and again in "The Lexus and the Olive Tree") posited that much of the hate you see from the native Muslim community is rooted in that; they are told early on that Allah is not a religion but a way of life, and that the tenets of the Koran are not a religious guideline, but a societal law, and from that good things will follow.  Then they see the opulent and vulgar display of wealth and ostentatiousness - Brad Pitt is (to them) jumping the gun a little on his enjoyment of the 72 virgins - from the West, from people that haven't put in the effort or the sacrifice, and it builds resentment and frustration.   I am grossly simplifying, but you can (and should; it's an excellent resource) read the book yourself and dig in a little. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1968 on: May 24, 2018, 02:57:29 PM »
That picture looks totally photo shopped to me.

It's a Florida license plate, though, so it could go either way.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20634
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1969 on: May 24, 2018, 03:56:59 PM »
I can't help but notice that this is an entirely white phenomenon. Not just white shooters, but they seem to happen in predominantly white suburban schools. I'm not entirely sure why that matters, but it does hint to me, even further, that entitlement is going to be a real factor in all of these.

I've said before, and will undoubtedly have to say again, that I believe that once we have a more complete understanding, they will find that there isn't a world of difference between the psychology of the kids that walked into Parkland or Santa Fe and the dude's that flew those planes into the World Trade Center.  Or the dudes that stormed La Bataclan.  It's not at all about "war fetishes" or "gun access".  It's about an undissipated rage and frustration that vents itself - one way or another - like that volcano in Hawai'i.

It's possible that this is why we don't see these kind of incidents in the inner cities that are known for their gangs and violence. Life on the streets is a life of constant frustration and venting. It never bottles up to the point where someone snaps and decides to kill 20 children.
I'm thinking it has to do with the acceptance that much of what they're told is bullshit. I think they learn from experience that they can't have everything they want. There's no entitlement and no disillusionment.

I think there's truth in that.  I don't mean to be flip, but it's hard to be disillusioned if you have no expectations to begin with.  Broad strokes, but still.    Thomas Freidman, in his book "From Beirut To Jerusalem" (and again in "The Lexus and the Olive Tree") posited that much of the hate you see from the native Muslim community is rooted in that; they are told early on that Allah is not a religion but a way of life, and that the tenets of the Koran are not a religious guideline, but a societal law, and from that good things will follow.  Then they see the opulent and vulgar display of wealth and ostentatiousness - Brad Pitt is (to them) jumping the gun a little on his enjoyment of the 72 virgins - from the West, from people that haven't put in the effort or the sacrifice, and it builds resentment and frustration.   I am grossly simplifying, but you can (and should; it's an excellent resource) read the book yourself and dig in a little.
Well, I think we're hitting on why some of these kids go off the reservation and others don't. That doesn't really address why the choose to depart while gunning down classmates, though. This is going to be an off the wall bit of empirical data to throw out, but I've been watching Dragnet reruns at the shop. Jack Webb ruled. In 1967 they're having much of he same conversation we're having here. So-Cal was just as full of disillusioned kids trying to cope way back then. Not only are they realizing that so much of what they've been told is bullshit, they also assume Comrade Dave's team is going to nuke them any minte. Except in 1967 when the kid who reads too much Nietzsche decides to tune out he starts dressing like a peacock and dropping some of that wonderful Sandoz acid. He doesn't go on a kill-crazy rampage. There are other factors at play here 50 years later than the angst and disillusionment we're discussing.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1970 on: May 24, 2018, 06:45:38 PM »
I can't help but notice that this is an entirely white phenomenon. Not just white shooters, but they seem to happen in predominantly white suburban schools. I'm not entirely sure why that matters, but it does hint to me, even further, that entitlement is going to be a real factor in all of these.

I've said before, and will undoubtedly have to say again, that I believe that once we have a more complete understanding, they will find that there isn't a world of difference between the psychology of the kids that walked into Parkland or Santa Fe and the dude's that flew those planes into the World Trade Center.  Or the dudes that stormed La Bataclan.  It's not at all about "war fetishes" or "gun access".  It's about an undissipated rage and frustration that vents itself - one way or another - like that volcano in Hawai'i.

It's possible that this is why we don't see these kind of incidents in the inner cities that are known for their gangs and violence. Life on the streets is a life of constant frustration and venting. It never bottles up to the point where someone snaps and decides to kill 20 children.
I'm thinking it has to do with the acceptance that much of what they're told is bullshit. I think they learn from experience that they can't have everything they want. There's no entitlement and no disillusionment.

Excellent point.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1971 on: May 25, 2018, 08:46:42 AM »
I can't help but notice that this is an entirely white phenomenon. Not just white shooters, but they seem to happen in predominantly white suburban schools. I'm not entirely sure why that matters, but it does hint to me, even further, that entitlement is going to be a real factor in all of these.

I've said before, and will undoubtedly have to say again, that I believe that once we have a more complete understanding, they will find that there isn't a world of difference between the psychology of the kids that walked into Parkland or Santa Fe and the dude's that flew those planes into the World Trade Center.  Or the dudes that stormed La Bataclan.  It's not at all about "war fetishes" or "gun access".  It's about an undissipated rage and frustration that vents itself - one way or another - like that volcano in Hawai'i.

It's possible that this is why we don't see these kind of incidents in the inner cities that are known for their gangs and violence. Life on the streets is a life of constant frustration and venting. It never bottles up to the point where someone snaps and decides to kill 20 children.
I'm thinking it has to do with the acceptance that much of what they're told is bullshit. I think they learn from experience that they can't have everything they want. There's no entitlement and no disillusionment.

I think there's truth in that.  I don't mean to be flip, but it's hard to be disillusioned if you have no expectations to begin with.  Broad strokes, but still.    Thomas Freidman, in his book "From Beirut To Jerusalem" (and again in "The Lexus and the Olive Tree") posited that much of the hate you see from the native Muslim community is rooted in that; they are told early on that Allah is not a religion but a way of life, and that the tenets of the Koran are not a religious guideline, but a societal law, and from that good things will follow.  Then they see the opulent and vulgar display of wealth and ostentatiousness - Brad Pitt is (to them) jumping the gun a little on his enjoyment of the 72 virgins - from the West, from people that haven't put in the effort or the sacrifice, and it builds resentment and frustration.   I am grossly simplifying, but you can (and should; it's an excellent resource) read the book yourself and dig in a little.
Well, I think we're hitting on why some of these kids go off the reservation and others don't. That doesn't really address why the choose to depart while gunning down classmates, though. This is going to be an off the wall bit of empirical data to throw out, but I've been watching Dragnet reruns at the shop. Jack Webb ruled. In 1967 they're having much of he same conversation we're having here. So-Cal was just as full of disillusioned kids trying to cope way back then. Not only are they realizing that so much of what they've been told is bullshit, they also assume Comrade Dave's team is going to nuke them any minte. Except in 1967 when the kid who reads too much Nietzsche decides to tune out he starts dressing like a peacock and dropping some of that wonderful Sandoz acid. He doesn't go on a kill-crazy rampage. There are other factors at play here 50 years later than the angst and disillusionment we're discussing.

Good point.   Not an argument, just an observation:  even the drugs the kids use today are harder core.   It wasn't my thing, but there was always someone with a tab of dubious provenance, and I had a couple friends with an annoying habit of taking the last finger of liquor from bottles and pouring it into a community bottle, but that was it.  I listen to some of the shit that my daughter's friends are into and man.   I can't imagine that's a pleasant or enjoyable high.   Plus, I'm in Connecticut, within the blast radius of the heavily-fentanyl-laced heroin that comes through Rhode Island; the fentanyl is now finding it's way into other stuff, and we hear almost weekly about kids dying from tainted weed.  You're not supposed to die from fucking weed, bro.   

Plus, I forget if I said it here or elsewhere, but suicide in kids under 15 has tripled in the last 40 years.   We talk about "suicide by cop", we're going to have to start talking about "suicide by school". 

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Head Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 16409
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1972 on: May 31, 2018, 10:57:15 AM »
So they released the parkland shooter's self made videos, made the day before and day of the event. They seem to echo the one thing we all agree on, that they need to give these shooters zero press. He stresses many times in the videos how "you will know my name" and such. Also, the kid sounds 100% off the fucking rails, all his dogs are completely off the leash and running away.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/05/30/parkland-shooting-suspect-detailed-plans-in-videos-im-going-to-be-the-next-school-shooter/
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline ?

  • Apparently the best username
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11529
  • Gender: Male
  • Less=Moore, Even Less=Wilson
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1973 on: July 02, 2018, 04:17:39 AM »
So the Capital Gazette shooter suspect had a grudge with the newspaper and wasn't politically motivated: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jarrod-ramos-maryland-shooting-suspect-capital-gazette-defamation-suit-annapolis-latest-newspaper-a8423076.html

Even then, I can't help wondering how long it'll take until someone else snaps and attacks another publication, inspired by Milo (who is in damage control mode, claiming he was just trolling) or the president himself:

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4454
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1974 on: July 02, 2018, 08:55:28 AM »
No, noone has said that if you take away the gun you take away the violence.
If you take away the easy access to guns you do put hurdles in front of the would be perpetrator. Hurdles that might give the authorities the chance to stop him or give him time to cool down...
Some acts of violence can be stopped if you take away the gun.
It is soo easy to stand away and pull the trigger. Someone who is capable of doing that is not automatically capable of stabbing people with a sword or a knife for instance...

You seem to be implying that there AREN'T hurdles in place.  There are.  There absolutely, unequivocally are.  But even if we assume there aren't, what hurdles could have stopped the latest incident at Sante Fe HS, for example?  This kid didn't run out in a rage and buy firearms and then go on a shooting spree before he had time to cool off.  He used VERY basic firearms that are allowed in every state and which would be impossible to ban unless virtually ALL guns were banned.  And this is true of the vast majority of these shootings.  So, really, what restrictions are we talking about?  What restrictions could likely prevent a significant amount of these incidents?  I'm not at all against reasonable restrictions.  But the notion that we don't have them and that that is the problem seems very uninformed to me.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1975 on: July 02, 2018, 08:55:38 AM »
So the Capital Gazette shooter suspect had a grudge with the newspaper and wasn't politically motivated: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jarrod-ramos-maryland-shooting-suspect-capital-gazette-defamation-suit-annapolis-latest-newspaper-a8423076.html

Even then, I can't help wondering how long it'll take until someone else snaps and attacks another publication, inspired by Milo (who is in damage control mode, claiming he was just trolling) or the president himself:


Not an unfair point, though Trump wouldn't be the only one stoking fires - a black man shooting up somewhere because the left keeps calling Trump a RACIST!, or a gay person shooting up somewhere because he's been told so often that Trump is a BIGOT!; it goes all ways - but that of course points us back to this one core question:   Why is KILLING MASS NUMBERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE the perceived "right answer" to any of these problems?   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1976 on: July 02, 2018, 08:59:41 AM »
No, noone has said that if you take away the gun you take away the violence.
If you take away the easy access to guns you do put hurdles in front of the would be perpetrator. Hurdles that might give the authorities the chance to stop him or give him time to cool down...
Some acts of violence can be stopped if you take away the gun.
It is soo easy to stand away and pull the trigger. Someone who is capable of doing that is not automatically capable of stabbing people with a sword or a knife for instance...

You seem to be implying that there AREN'T hurdles in place.  There are.  There absolutely, unequivocally are.  But even if we assume there aren't, what hurdles could have stopped the latest incident at Sante Fe HS, for example?  This kid didn't run out in a rage and buy firearms and then go on a shooting spree before he had time to cool off.  He used VERY basic firearms that are allowed in every state and which would be impossible to ban unless virtually ALL guns were banned.  And this is true of the vast majority of these shootings.  So, really, what restrictions are we talking about?  What restrictions could likely prevent a significant amount of these incidents?  I'm not at all against reasonable restrictions.  But the notion that we don't have them and that that is the problem seems very uninformed to me.

And inb4 anyone says it, an "absolute ban" would have to encompass the entire planet, because in almost EVERY INSTANCE* where it's happened, the banning of guns led to MORE violence, MORE crime, and MORE criminal use of a firearm than before.   Australia are the easy ones, but there are others. 

* I say that specifically, because I am familiar with several jurisdictions where this has happened.  Every one I am aware of, did not deliver on the promised results.   I can't profess to know everything, or every stat, but I am more-than-casually familiar with this subject and stand by the premise even if the semantics don't match explicitly.   

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26647
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1977 on: July 02, 2018, 11:14:49 AM »
So the Capital Gazette shooter suspect had a grudge with the newspaper and wasn't politically motivated: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jarrod-ramos-maryland-shooting-suspect-capital-gazette-defamation-suit-annapolis-latest-newspaper-a8423076.html

Even then, I can't help wondering how long it'll take until someone else snaps and attacks another publication, inspired by Milo (who is in damage control mode, claiming he was just trolling) or the president himself:


Not an unfair point, though Trump wouldn't be the only one stoking fires - a black man shooting up somewhere because the left keeps calling Trump a RACIST!, or a gay person shooting up somewhere because he's been told so often that Trump is a BIGOT!; it goes all ways - but that of course points us back to this one core question:   Why is KILLING MASS NUMBERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE the perceived "right answer" to any of these problems?   

So me saying Trump is a bigot is the equivalent of the President of The United States, the leader of the country, declaring certain parties to be enemies of the citizens of the country? I think not.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4454
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1978 on: July 02, 2018, 11:21:24 AM »
Whether or not it is "equivalent," I think it is factually incorrect, ill advised, counterproductive, and morally wrong for a variety of reason.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26647
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1979 on: July 02, 2018, 11:24:26 AM »
Whether or not it is "equivalent," I think it is factually incorrect, ill advised, counterproductive, and morally wrong for a variety of reason.

Me calling Trump a bigot? Iím not.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1980 on: July 02, 2018, 11:26:49 AM »
So the Capital Gazette shooter suspect had a grudge with the newspaper and wasn't politically motivated: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jarrod-ramos-maryland-shooting-suspect-capital-gazette-defamation-suit-annapolis-latest-newspaper-a8423076.html

Even then, I can't help wondering how long it'll take until someone else snaps and attacks another publication, inspired by Milo (who is in damage control mode, claiming he was just trolling) or the president himself:


Not an unfair point, though Trump wouldn't be the only one stoking fires - a black man shooting up somewhere because the left keeps calling Trump a RACIST!, or a gay person shooting up somewhere because he's been told so often that Trump is a BIGOT!; it goes all ways - but that of course points us back to this one core question:   Why is KILLING MASS NUMBERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE the perceived "right answer" to any of these problems?   

So me saying Trump is a bigot is the equivalent of the President of The United States, the leader of the country, declaring certain parties to be enemies of the citizens of the country? I think not.

You can "think not", but the "but he's the PRESIDENT!" argument only works if the whole premise of the argument to begin with is false.  We wouldn't have to fire Roseanne, or bitch about the non-firing of Sam Bee if it was just because "he's the PRESIDENT!"  This idea that SOME words hurt - i.e. the words of the one guy that doesn't think like us - and others don't is bull crap.  You either legitimize with words or you do not.    The entire election of 2016 was proof that it doesn't have to JUST be the "President" when  it comes to this stuff.    YES, it's BAD when the President says this stuff.  YES, we wish our leader was a better example.   But he's not, and so we must be better; we must be principled.  I don't mean by bullying others to conform to our subjective morality, no, but to at least pick a standard and hold others to it without reference to the little capital letter after their name, or the agenda to which they are focused.   

Let me ask you this:   if miraculously Barack Obama was President for a third term, would we ignore these kinds of things by people that weren't the President?   Of course not.     

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26647
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1981 on: July 02, 2018, 11:34:08 AM »
So the Capital Gazette shooter suspect had a grudge with the newspaper and wasn't politically motivated: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jarrod-ramos-maryland-shooting-suspect-capital-gazette-defamation-suit-annapolis-latest-newspaper-a8423076.html

Even then, I can't help wondering how long it'll take until someone else snaps and attacks another publication, inspired by Milo (who is in damage control mode, claiming he was just trolling) or the president himself:


Not an unfair point, though Trump wouldn't be the only one stoking fires - a black man shooting up somewhere because the left keeps calling Trump a RACIST!, or a gay person shooting up somewhere because he's been told so often that Trump is a BIGOT!; it goes all ways - but that of course points us back to this one core question:   Why is KILLING MASS NUMBERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE the perceived "right answer" to any of these problems?   

So me saying Trump is a bigot is the equivalent of the President of The United States, the leader of the country, declaring certain parties to be enemies of the citizens of the country? I think not.

You can "think not", but the "but he's the PRESIDENT!" argument only works if the whole premise of the argument to begin with is false.  We wouldn't have to fire Roseanne, or bitch about the non-firing of Sam Bee if it was just because "he's the PRESIDENT!"  This idea that SOME words hurt - i.e. the words of the one guy that doesn't think like us - and others don't is bull crap.  You either legitimize with words or you do not.    The entire election of 2016 was proof that it doesn't have to JUST be the "President" when  it comes to this stuff.    YES, it's BAD when the President says this stuff.  YES, we wish our leader was a better example.   But he's not, and so we must be better; we must be principled.  I don't mean by bullying others to conform to our subjective morality, no, but to at least pick a standard and hold others to it without reference to the little capital letter after their name, or the agenda to which they are focused.   

Let me ask you this:   if miraculously Barack Obama was President for a third term, would we ignore these kinds of things by people that weren't the President?   Of course not.     

Youíre arguing an unrelated principle. I have no desire to argue that specific principle since itís not what we were talking about before you introduced it.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20634
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1982 on: July 02, 2018, 11:56:54 AM »
Whether or not it is "equivalent," I think it is factually incorrect, ill advised, counterproductive, and morally wrong for a variety of reason.
If you're referring to Trump's tweet I agree.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1983 on: July 02, 2018, 11:58:58 AM »
To Adami's question:   I think it's directly related.   We either reject ad hominem, specious, or partisan arguments or we don't.   Whether it's "the President of the United States" - your words, or not is or should be, immaterial.

I personally don't like Trump's language, tactics, or approach, but the underlying premise isn't wrong, any more than "racism" as an underlying premise is wrong.   News agencies that forsake the transmission of data - from which we arrive at our own conclusions - in favor of propaganda, agendas, and pre-determined conclusions ARE the enemy of ANY free-thinking person.  it's not a shocking statement.   Hell, when  Obama and Clinton say it about Fox News, many are like "testify, my brother!".  So why doesn't it work both ways?   I don't need headlines like this from major news outlets:
The New York Times:  "Trumpís Ancestral Village Abounds With His Relatives. Few Will Admit It." That's relevant, why?
Business Insider:   "People have started calling Trump's draft bill to abandon world trade rules the 'FART Act'"   What "people"?  The administration was clear that it is NOT a "Trump draft bill".  So why report that?



 

 

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26647
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1984 on: July 02, 2018, 12:05:14 PM »
To Adami's question:   I think it's directly related.   We either reject ad hominem, specious, or partisan arguments or we don't.   Whether it's "the President of the United States" - your words, or not is or should be, immaterial.

No.

Things arenít black and white like that.



And again, youíre arguing an unrelated principle to Bartís original point about practicality.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2018, 12:10:59 PM by Adami »
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1985 on: July 02, 2018, 12:18:24 PM »
To Adami's question:   I think it's directly related.   We either reject ad hominem, specious, or partisan arguments or we don't.   Whether it's "the President of the United States" - your words, or not is or should be, immaterial.

No.

Things arenít black and white like that.

No, they're not now, and that's not working.  That's why we have the most partisan Congress in our lifetime, and that's why we have Donald Trump.     That's my point.

Quote
And again, youíre arguing an unrelated principle to Bartís original point about practicality.

Unless you're just arguing because it's me, which I get, please stop telling me what I'm arguing.  You asked a question.   You asked "So me saying Trump is a bigot is the equivalent of the President of The United States, the leader of the country, declaring certain parties to be enemies of the citizens of the country?" and you answered it "I think not.".

I responded to that.   I think they are the same.  And I think that because it's not about whether someone is a "bigot" or not, or an "enemy" or not.  After all, "deplorable" was fine, wasn't it?   (I don't think so, but I'm in the distinct minority on that).   So the difference is that it is "The President Of The United States" doing it.    And I explained why that is immaterial. 

Where did I run foul?   

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4454
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1986 on: July 02, 2018, 12:18:50 PM »
Anyhow, yet another senseless shooting involving these despicable assault weapons.  No idea why the government continues to sit idly by and let these be legal as the death toll continues to climb.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20634
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1987 on: July 02, 2018, 12:20:38 PM »
To Adami's question:   I think it's directly related.   We either reject ad hominem, specious, or partisan arguments or we don't.   Whether it's "the President of the United States" - your words, or not is or should be, immaterial.

I personally don't like Trump's language, tactics, or approach, but the underlying premise isn't wrong, any more than "racism" as an underlying premise is wrong.   News agencies that forsake the transmission of data - from which we arrive at our own conclusions - in favor of propaganda, agendas, and pre-determined conclusions ARE the enemy of ANY free-thinking person.  it's not a shocking statement.   Hell, when  Obama and Clinton say it about Fox News, many are like "testify, my brother!".  So why doesn't it work both ways?   I don't need headlines like this from major news outlets:
The New York Times:  "Trumpís Ancestral Village Abounds With His Relatives. Few Will Admit It." That's relevant, why?
Business Insider:   "People have started calling Trump's draft bill to abandon world trade rules the 'FART Act'"   What "people"?  The administration was clear that it is NOT a "Trump draft bill".  So why report that?



 

 

It does work both ways. Nobody is ever holding up MSNBC et al as the shining beacon of unbiased journalism. People are, rightly, saying they're no different than FOX and the WSJ. Moreover, people are also claiming that for the POTUS to declare war on the press is a very bad thing for democracy. Under different circumstances I think you'd agree. Notice that the Boy King never bothers calling out equally shady organizations in the "fake news is evil tweets," despite the fact that FOX was Fake News before it was cool. 

Meanwhile over at FOX:

Quote

Path to citizenship?
Powerful cleric claims Obama naturalized thousands of Iranian VIPs during nuke talks

You don't need to point out to me that if it's true it actually is relevant, but we have no way of knowing if it's true, and moreover, asking an unanswered question in your headline is Intro to Yellow Journalism 091 level terrible.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20634
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1988 on: July 02, 2018, 12:24:03 PM »
Anyhow, yet another senseless shooting involving these despicable assault weapons.  No idea why the government continues to sit idly by and let these be legal as the death toll continues to climb.
Clearly armed citizens aren't the deterrence to violence that the NRA would like for us to believe. Maybe had there been more guns there the gator would have thought twice about terrorizing that poor little girl.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4454
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1989 on: July 02, 2018, 12:27:10 PM »
I would like to think so.  That is certainly a more palatable world to live in than a world seeing yahoos like this running around saying, "you WANT me on that wall.  You NEED me on that wall."
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1990 on: July 02, 2018, 12:52:01 PM »
I have no rebuttal to the Obama thing. I think that's just as wrong as anything we've talked about.  No argument. 

But let's talk about the rest of it.  Where was/is the outrage when Fox News is blamed for the results of a national Presidential election (as both Obama and Clinton did)?   

The President - or anyone else - declaring TMZ or Entertainment Tonight! the enemy of the people is absolutely ZERO threat to democracy, because the predicate for that idea is that the press is in fact operating as an independent entity.  The so-called "Fourth Estate".  Originally, the "fourth estate" was a British term, referencing the estates of the realm (In Parliament, the House of Lords - Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal - and the House of Commons), but in the States, it's come to mean the check and balance on the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial).    I think we've both been party to discussions that lambasted the Judiciary - or at least members of it - for being "partisan shills".  Aren't they a threat to democracy? 

You and I are in agreement, I presume, that Trump calling the judges of the Ninth Circuit names is inappropriate and dangerous.   I don't disagree; but that's not at all to say that the judges are right, impartial, or fair.   And I hope - even if you don't agree that it's bad, wrong, or unfair - that the arguments against Trump seem to be loose with the fairness and terribly one-sided.   The fact is, he's wrong about HOW he does things far more often than he's wrong about the WHY it's being done (not to say he's NEVER wrong, but relatively...).   To call all Mexican immigrants rapists, criminals and freeloaders is not to say that there is no problem with immigration.  THERE IS.  To call for tariffs against Canada is not to say that there aren't problem areas in our international trade.   THERE IS.    To call all free press "enemies" is not to say that there isn't a bias problem in our press today.    THERE IS.  I shouldn't know where my newscasters fall on the ideological continuum, right OR left.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20634
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1991 on: July 02, 2018, 01:07:16 PM »
I have no rebuttal to the Obama thing. I think that's just as wrong as anything we've talked about.  No argument. 

But let's talk about the rest of it.  Where was/is the outrage when Fox News is blamed for the results of a national Presidential election (as both Obama and Clinton did)?   

The President - or anyone else - declaring TMZ or Entertainment Tonight! the enemy of the people is absolutely ZERO threat to democracy, because the predicate for that idea is that the press is in fact operating as an independent entity.  The so-called "Fourth Estate".  Originally, the "fourth estate" was a British term, referencing the estates of the realm (In Parliament, the House of Lords - Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal - and the House of Commons), but in the States, it's come to mean the check and balance on the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial).    I think we've both been party to discussions that lambasted the Judiciary - or at least members of it - for being "partisan shills".  Aren't they a threat to democracy? 

You and I are in agreement, I presume, that Trump calling the judges of the Ninth Circuit names is inappropriate and dangerous.   I don't disagree; but that's not at all to say that the judges are right, impartial, or fair.   And I hope - even if you don't agree that it's bad, wrong, or unfair - that the arguments against Trump seem to be loose with the fairness and terribly one-sided.   The fact is, he's wrong about HOW he does things far more often than he's wrong about the WHY it's being done (not to say he's NEVER wrong, but relatively...).   To call all Mexican immigrants rapists, criminals and freeloaders is not to say that there is no problem with immigration.  THERE IS.  To call for tariffs against Canada is not to say that there aren't problem areas in our international trade.   THERE IS.    To call all free press "enemies" is not to say that there isn't a bias problem in our press today.    THERE IS.  I shouldn't know where my newscasters fall on the ideological continuum, right OR left.
In each of these cases there is a problem. A problem that Trump makes worse with his idiotic rhetoric. Far more concerning, he normalizes idiocy by doing so. Does Trump help matters by referring to Mexican rapists, so-called judges, Canada as a national security threat, or the failing NYT and fake news? Not only does he not help matters, he makes things much worse, and beyond that reinforces the culture that you defend him from in the first place.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1992 on: July 02, 2018, 11:05:20 PM »
I'm sort of surprised at that comment.  Does Ozzy singing about suicide "normalize" it?   I don't get this argument about "normalizing", which, coincidentally, only really reared it's ugly head with the dawning of the Trump era.   I understand the concept, of course, but some of the theories basically make America Milgram's 325,000,000.  Which, of course, is plausible, since Milgram's experiment was reproduced multiple times.  But the real world has almost constant and equally ardent opposite stimuli, so I'm back to finding it implausible. 

And understand, I may not be the best person to make this argument, since the followup to this is exactly what I argue against about the Left:  under that theory, if I don't actually explicitly disavow, then I AM part of the problem, and I can't accept that.   

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6172
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1993 on: July 03, 2018, 10:17:56 AM »
I think the difference between what Ozzie sings about and what the President says is primarily their position in society and their power. Just as there is a difference when one of your peers or your boss makes a disparaging remark about the clothes you're wearing.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13159
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1994 on: July 03, 2018, 10:26:55 AM »
I think the difference between what Ozzie sings about and what the President says is primarily their position in society and their power. Just as there is a difference when one of your peers or your boss makes a disparaging remark about the clothes you're wearing.

Honest question:  why does that matter?   There are too many examples of Presidents saying things that ultimately did not get "normalized" but all of a sudden that's the fear here.    I mean no disrespect, but I fear the "normalization" isn't in Trump himself or the things that he says.  The "normalization" is already here, and that's in the way we handle - or not - our politicians.  That normalization didn't happen because of anything anyone said.   It came from good old fashioned Pavlovian psychology.