FAUX News
FAUX News
Both sides are filled with hate including you. Admit it!
This deserves a bump. Thanks for the thoughtful post/ analysis, bladerunner.
The internet is a catalyst for any type of radical thought, where people can receive affirmation for violent ideas to the point of action, without having truly close enough, personal connections to challenge their ideas and violence before the tipping point. The internet plays a fundamental role in these tragedies.
Sure, stronger regulation for guns might reduce the magnitude of these catastrophies. But as long as radicalism of any and all forms -- though you are in denial if you don't see the clear connection to male white supremacy (I'm a white male, fyi) -- continues to spread, people will go great lengths to inflict violence on others.
I saw someone post here about the mass shootings in Chicago recently as an argument against the commonality of white men perpetuating the majority of this terrorism. Sure, gang violence results in many mass shootings. But of the events I have heard about with national media coverage, I think only the San Bernadino shooting wasn't perpetrated by a white man...
Sadly the message boards like these are preventing necessary, personal discussion. I hope we can all think more critically about the root causes (there are multiple causes) and nuances of these events, and at least agree that we don't want them to be happening. Be safe everyone.
the post:
"I find it hard to believe that any of these are primarily politically motivated. We had the Vegas gunman - no manifesto and never any clear motive. The kid in California who was angry he was a virgin. They say the El Paso shooter was a very isolated person who didn't interact with people at all. When I was a kid and young adult (I'm 55), there was no internet and no cell phones. You had to talk to people, in person or on the phone. I'm wondering if the digitation (?) if that's a word, of our society has bred a generation of disaffected, frustrated young men who can't communicate with others other than via message boards. When that happens, people become 1 dimensional abstractions who either agree with you or they don't. They become so numb to the outside world that the thought of killing other people is not only plausible, it becomes a way out. I live in Colorado, where we had Columbine and the Aurora theatre shooter. I think the time has finally come when
restrictions or simply banning assault rifles and other high capacity weapons is necessary.
I've always been a gun rights advocate. But the guns I own have 6 round magazines. We may have this problem for years to come. It happens no matter who's in office. But if we can't stop these killers, then at least we can start to minimize the damage."
no not really wrote:
If the media is to blame, why does it only inspire shootings in the US when the stories have worldwide reach?
Shifting the blame is just part of the political game people like to play. If the problem is the media then no need to look at the problem of easy access to guns. Why bother considering why this is mostly a unique problem to the US.
To the OP: I 100% agree.
I think you can keep layering the responsibilities, it's not a one reason thing.
The shooter is obviously responsible on one level, plus family etc are likely involved.
The media is responsible on other levels, both for the way shootings are reported, but also the way things like hate and fear are promoted in order to get subscribers, readers etc.
Population is reponsible to a level, because they watch/read the rubbish, keeping the cycle going. They also vote to get politicians in who influence policies.
You (and me) are responsible, because we don't do enough to stop the loop.
There's obviously a lot more to it, but you can start from the last ones, and work inwards. Start by researching both sides of arguments, don't read just one biased source. Work on yourself, and those around, to prevent fear and hate where you see it, and promote positive aspects.
Then don't vote in politicians who like to divide and sow hatred and fear.
Etc
Tarnation boi wrote:
It’s estimated the 1/3rd of all the revenue generated from CNN last year was from ads and viewership related to mass shootings. We live in a sick world.
source?
One side says, "Y'all go to hell." The other says "if I believed in God, I'd send you there." But either way we make some space in the hell that we create... on both sides.
One side says, "Kill 'em all!" The other says, "Line those killers up against the wall." But either way some blood is shed thanks to our cooperation... on both sides.
One side says, "Man, take what's yours." The other says, "Live on no more than you can afford." But either way we just possess, and everyone ends up with less... on both sides.
no. just no. stop squawking off republican nonsense.
source? wrote:
Tarnation boi wrote:
It’s estimated the 1/3rd of all the revenue generated from CNN last year was from ads and viewership related to mass shootings. We live in a sick world.
source?
Most likely the source is Fox News, which generates most of its revenue these days from stories about AOC. They have one every day. One day I saw five stories about her on the front page. Of course the comments are mostly rape fantasies by troubled loners who live in vans and build bombs that don't work.
This is like the alcohol/drugs argument. Tell me something........ Is it the person who picks up the bottle and drinks out of it or is it the bottle that magically lifts itself up and pours itself down your throat?
at its core, reporting the news is just that..
But yes its also a commodity and money can be made here. And yes someone seeking an audience for their message can use it as a platform.
If media went away, would it still occur? Does a bear poop in the woods? Plenty of these events happen else where and we never get media coverage.
I don't disagree but its not the whole answer and the real answer is lies in very deep social political commentary and this is a distance running forum. I bet if most kids would take up track/xc their self esteems would soar their lives would have purpose. And they would be too tired from eating studying running to ponder mass destruction.
There is such a drum beat from both side telling people they are being attacked, that their personal safety is at risk by the other side, that the violently mentally ill latch on to that and eventually act out.
_______________________________________________---
Of course the shooter is responsible. Question is how have so many young men come to enact such evil?
Could be lack of prayer in school for starters.
Hahahahahaha. Oh man, for such a serious thread I sure wasn’t expecting such a gem of a joke. This is Andy Kaufman level comedic genius. Prayer in school...I’m gonna be repeating that one a lot today.
NotPC wrote:
There is such a drum beat from both side telling people they are being attacked, that their personal safety is at risk by the other side, that the violently mentally ill latch on to that and eventually act out.
Exactly.
These people are very easily influenced. Same as religious nutters in that respect. So take away the drum beating and it calms down again.
But.. the drum beating makes money. Twitter is literally a billion pound business founded on making people argue and getting people riled up.
Media Bro wrote:
I’m serious - they inspire future killings by making the killers insanely famous, airing the killers name for weeks on end. All of these murders know for a fact if they go blast a few people that CNN / Fox will have them famous within 5 mins.
The bad part? The media organizations love the shootings as they make literally upon millions of dollars in ad revenue/ commercials from all the people who click on the articles or watch the stuff on TV. It seems like legislation needs to be passed to prevent this stuff from being covered as it’s a sick loop of people making money off killings which inspires more shootings.
When there is an attempted mass shooting and an armed person quickly takes them out, it never turns into a national story. I wonder why that is.
But there's the solution for you.
Agreed. We all know that inner city gun violence is due to radicalization that happens on the internet.
The cops took the Dayton guy out in 30 seconds, that has to be about as fast as it can be done and he still killed nine and hit another 14 . So get you head out it.
Dufus wrote:
celery wrote:
When there is an attempted mass shooting and an armed person quickly takes them out, it never turns into a national story. I wonder why that is.
But there's the solution for you.
The cops took the Dayton guy out in 30 seconds, that has to be about as fast as it can be done and he still killed nine and hit another 14 . So get you head out it.
Exactly. One of the few gun violence related type incidents that is statistically even more rare than a mass shooting is an armed private citizen/ non-law enforcement officer being “the good guy with a gun” that stops one of these mass shooting incidents. Sure, it happens—like the church shooting in Texas a few years back but it is very, very rare.
Celery, it’s not that the mainstream media doesn’t cover it when one of these “good guys with a gun” does something (the only reason I know about the details of the Texas church shooting is because of coverage by the “libs” in the mainstream media) it’s simply that it doesn’t happen often. It’s rare. The overwhelmingly major—probably 99.999% of non-law enforcements officer gun owners who consider themselves “good guys with guns” will never use that gun to stop a crime or prevent a mass shooting. They are much more likely to experience an accidental shooting or a family members suicide with that gun than they are to ever help stop a mass shooter or any other crime.
These are simply facts.