Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LogicalFallacy

Shooting in NZ

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

I wouldn't call streaming it necessarily bad. And definitely not the sharing of it. Now that the stuff is out there, it should be used. There were lessons to be learnt in the video. Like one glaring failure to escape and how that guy should have tried to tackle the shooter instead of thinking he could just run and get away.

^^because ya know armchair critics always have the best solutions in particular about crisis scenarios. And who cares that it's a fucking violent video of people losing their lives and probably pretty traumatizing to any people who lost family, it's more important it be posted so these critics can critique it

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

^^because ya know armchair critics always have the best solutions in particular about crisis scenarios. And who cares that it's a fucking violent video of people losing their lives and probably pretty traumatizing to any people who lost family, it's more important it be posted so these critics can critique it

 

U gotta be critical to learn from mistakes. Yours or anyones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

 

U gotta be critical to learn from mistakes. Yours or anyones.

 

A bit extreme, but yeah you have a point. What concerns me is the bandwagon factor, though. Now some other nutter will get ideas and want to copy cat it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joshpantera said:

Now some other nutter will get ideas and want to copy cat it. 

 

That's a common argument, but nowadays it doesn't tug my heartstrings at all. I mean there are enough examples already, so I don't think this is going to inspire anyone who isn't already inspired.

 

I even think there's an argument to be made for living the experience through his video and not feeling the need anymore because the guy already fulfilled it for you and what's left is you just get to see him go rot in jail forever.

 

Mostly it's just my distaste for denying information. Nobody knows what the real effect is and it's pretty arrogant to decide for others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ToHellWithMe said:

That's a common argument, but nowadays it doesn't tug my heartstrings at all. I mean there are enough examples already, so I don't think this is going to inspire anyone who isn't already inspired.

 

I mean the gopro mount. Copycats then wanting to gopro their demented urges and up the attention and terror factor.

 

14 minutes ago, ToHellWithMe said:

I even think there's an argument to be made for living the experience through his video and not feeling the need anymore because the guy already fulfilled it for you and what's left is you just get to see him go rot in jail forever.

 

Sort of like a snuff film? The movie 8mm with Nick Cage comes to mind.....

 

16 minutes ago, ToHellWithMe said:

Mostly it's just my distaste for denying information. Nobody knows what the real effect is and it's pretty arrogant to decide for others.

 

I never said anything about denying information or deciding for others. I said that what concerns me is that the gopro terrorism will probably become a thing now, with copy cat nutters seeking the same kind of attention. I haven't condoned taking it down. I just resent the fact that this nutter did it in the first place. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

I mean the gopro mount. Copycats then wanting to gopro their demented urges and up the attention and terror factor.

 

I dunno if it matters unless it truly is an additional impetus to commit the act in the first place. If they'd do it anyway, I can only see it as a good thing that they at least document it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And people wonder why I criticise US involment in other countries… now the NRA is shoving their nose into our gun debate.

 

But our politicians are telling them to buggar off! Both right and left sides. Good on em for showing some backbone and cohesion here.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111484260/judith-collins-tells-nra-to-bugger-off-over-new-zealand-gun-reform

 

Looks like legislation will pass with huge support to ban military style automatics with a buy back scheme. Naturally a few of the devoted folks are upset. My thoughts basically boil down to I'm sorry that your feelies about guns outweigh peoples lives and practical considerations. I do know of a country you'd love though across the pacific - heck I'd support a bill to ship you there at taxpayers expense (Along with a few other folks) :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

 

I dunno if it matters unless it truly is an additional impetus to commit the act in the first place. If they'd do it anyway, I can only see it as a good thing that they at least document it properly.

 

There is some logic to that. You about have me sold. At least in the same sense as security and body cams are considered helpful in going over crime scenes and what not. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

I wouldn't call streaming it necessarily bad. And definitely not the sharing of it. Now that the stuff is out there, it should be used. There were lessons to be learnt in the video. Like one glaring failure to escape and how that guy should have tried to tackle the shooter instead of thinking he could just run and get away.

 

So you don't have a problem with ISIS live streaming beheadings along with their rantings? And then other likeminded people sharing and spreading it?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

That's a common argument, but nowadays it doesn't tug my heartstrings at all. I mean there are enough examples already, so I don't think this is going to inspire anyone who isn't already inspired.

 

Any data to back this up, or is it just opinion?

 

My opinion is that events like this do trigger copycat incidents. People that be on the fence about their 'convictions' suddenly get inspired and go do it. But I haven't seen any research that supports either position.

4 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

I even think there's an argument to be made for living the experience through his video and not feeling the need anymore because the guy already fulfilled it for you and what's left is you just get to see him go rot in jail forever.

 

I don't find this convincing at all. I watch plenty of videos of people catching fish from kayaks... all it's made me want to do is get out there and go kayak fishing. Far from fulfilling need, it could ignite it.

 

4 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

Mostly it's just my distaste for denying information. Nobody knows what the real effect is and it's pretty arrogant to decide for others.

 

Live streaming and sharing horrific events isn't 'information'. You mentioned learning - you mean potential terrorists can learn what to do and what not to do? It's not going to teach very much for those being shot at - the type most likely to watch the video will have the most to gain as they are the most likely to be watching it. At the least it will give those who are, shall we say, anti Muslim, great satisfaction watching them die. If you think that's good I'm at loss as to how to respond.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LogicalFallacy said:

So you don't have a problem with ISIS live streaming beheadings along with their rantings? And then other likeminded people sharing and spreading it?

 

That's right. They're proudly revealing their true colors. Could be way worse if they hid it like nazis hid genocide from the masses who likely wouldn't accept it.

 

I guess there are ways to use the fear they command thanks to their reputation, and there might be some who are attracted precisely to their savagery, but I bet there are many more who decide to steer very clear of ISIS recruiters thanks to their public image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Any data to back this up, or is it just opinion?

 

My opinion is that events like this do trigger copycat incidents. People that be on the fence about their 'convictions' suddenly get inspired and go do it. But I haven't seen any research that supports either position

 

No data, just an opinion.

I think Columbine etc certainly did trigger copycats, but I also think oversaturation is a thing. There are already enough cases to introduce the spree killing concept to those who are attracted to it. Can't put the genie back in the bottle.

 

Having seen the Christchurch shooting video, I personally don't think it can attract as much as it will just show how empty and meaningless the whole act is. But that's just my guess, of course. Still, I hope you can see at least my principle, that if it's possible to portray an incident in a way that whets up people's appetites, it's also possible to dispel any magic and help the angry folks see there wouldn't be much glory in that course of action after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents:

 

We know the "Werther effect" - that the more media report a suicide, the more others feel "inspired" to off themselves too. Suicide bombings and such aren't far from that.

 

Also, as far as I heard (I haven't watched that sick video et al but I saw evaluations by people who are ususally damn well-informed and right) the entire thing has basically be set up as a media event (of the sickest kind). Which would mean by covering it left and right we're giving the sick bastard even more of what he wanted.

 

Finally, for purely ethical reasons I consider it 100 % wrong to give vile beasts like that one any more than just the slightest coverage. Their victims deserve to be remembered. They do not. Punish them with erasing them from the public consciousness forever.

 

Not that that would be possible in our era of corrupt sensationalist "if it bleeds it leads" "media"... :vent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Thurisaz makes a good point. By not shutting down sharing and viewing of this we are playing right into the terrorists game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched various ISIS beheading and burning alive videos uncut, uncensored, and in their entirety. I'm not sure that there is anything substantive to be learned from these videos.

 

People who go into watching these videos thinking that this is a bad thing will end up, like me, feeling rather ill.

 

People who go in thinking that maybe, the bad guys had a point...

 

We all tend to find what we're looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was inevitable that someone, or some group, was going to respond to the Muslim terrorist attacks. When militants posted video of decapitating people, coordinated attacks with automatic weapons that killed many people, planting hidden bombs, etc. They were inviting a deadly response. It was only a matter of time. And the retaliation began long before the NZ attack and it will likely continue.

 

All this senseless killing of innocent people is horrific and sickening, but predictable. And sadly it will continue.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Geezer said:

It was inevitable that someone, or some group, was going to respond to the Muslim terrorist attacks. When militants posted video of decapitating people, coordinated attacks with automatic weapons that killed many people, planting hidden bombs, etc. They were inviting a deadly response. It was only a matter of time. And the retaliation began long before the NZ attack and it will likely continue.

 

All this senseless killing of innocent people is horrific and sickening, but predictable. And sadly it will continue.

 

 

 

 

That's what I was thinking. Seems like a response to muslim group based terror attacks and live stream beheadings that they started and have continued over the last few decades. And it probably will continue. Action, reaction. Action, reaction...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 muslim group based terror

More like Islamic extremist terror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah! NZ banned even the written manifesto. Possession or sharing is punishable by up to 14 years of imprisonment. The same of course applies to the video.

Move along, nothing to see here, nothing to read here.

 

Previously, NZ (as well as some Australian) internet service providers have already barred their customers from access to multiple video hosting sites, web forums and web text archive services where you could access the shooting video or the manifesto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

More like Islamic extremist terror

 

The muslim based terrorist groups tend to be extreme. Taliban, ISIS, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ToHellWithMe said:

Hah! NZ banned even the written manifesto. Possession or sharing is punishable by up to 14 years of imprisonment. The same of course applies to the video.

Move along, nothing to see here, nothing to read here.

 

Previously, NZ (as well as some Australian) internet service providers have already barred their customers from access to multiple video hosting sites, web forums and web text archive services where you could access the shooting video or the manifesto.

 

I'm not surprised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The muslim based terrorist groups tend to be extreme. Taliban, ISIS, etc.

 

The point I think being made was that Islamic terrorism is the driving ideology as opposed to Muslims who are simply people who practice the religion.

 

It'd be like you saying white group based terror in response to the Chch shootings rather than saying Nationalistic based terror.

 

Any terror group is by definition extreme. However not all Muslims are extreme.

 

Slight, but important distinctions.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ToHellWithMe said:

Hah! NZ banned even the written manifesto. Possession or sharing is punishable by up to 14 years of imprisonment. The same of course applies to the video.

Move along, nothing to see here, nothing to read here.

 

Previously, NZ (as well as some Australian) internet service providers have already barred their customers from access to multiple video hosting sites, web forums and web text archive services where you could access the shooting video or the manifesto.

 

I take it you disagree with the decision? According to the chief censor (Admittedly a worrying title) The material crossed the ground from ideology to methodology. In other words it didn't just say we should kill X group of people, but here's how we kill them. To quote:

 

Quote

"There is an important distinction to be made between 'hate speech', which may be rejected by many right-thinking people but which is legal to express, and this type of publication, which is deliberately constructed to inspire further murder and terrorism," he said.

 

My line on free speech has always been the inciting of violence. Once you are saying x people should be killed, and here's how, you are no longer in the free speech zone.

 

The one good objection I've seen of this is that by banning the material it means that others cannot properly understand the ideology in order to combat it.... ehhh however I'm not sure what you need to understand in order to combat "lets kill all x people". Er no, lets not. I don't need to study your deluded ravings to combat that notion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

The point I think being made was that Islamic terrorism is the driving ideology as opposed to Muslims who are simply people who practice the religion.

 

It'd be like you saying white group based terror in response to the Chch shootings rather than saying Nationalistic based terror.

 

Any terror group is by definition extreme. However not all Muslims are extreme.

 

Slight, but important distinctions.

 

I was clear enough to give context as to who I was referring to. You can call them Islamic extremists. But we're talking about muslim (adherent's to the religion of islam) based terrorist groups nonetheless. They are muslim / islamic based groups of terrorists, not christian groups or something else.

 

This guy in NZ went too far by not taking out his aggression on the terrorist groups themselves and their specific members, but instead took it out on innocent people. He didn't draw the obvious distinction. And it seems like a reaction to the terrorists terrorizing people, so now this guys wants to terrorize right back. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I take it you disagree with the decision?

 

Oh, I do.

There's an argument to be made for criminalizing the act of inciting, say, angry mobs to lynching someone, but criminalizing the sharing and possession of writings where the context makes it obvious it's part of a fucking spree shooter's manifesto? People are sentient enough to know doing as the killer suggests would make you a terrorist, too.

 

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

The one good objection I've seen of this is that by banning the material it means that others cannot properly understand the ideology in order to combat it.... ehhh however I'm not sure what you need to understand in order to combat "lets kill all x people".

 

That's not all of the manifesto. In fact I didn't even read that far. The beginning where he explained his background, radicalization process and motivations contained no incitement. As for combating his ideology, "Terrorism is bad!" won't truly cut it, you know. If someone is ready to throw their life away for something, it's going to be something of absolute importance to them.

 

Of course you could try to remove the need to argue against them by ensuring those ideas never propagate. But can you really accomplish that? It seems more likely that in the end you'll only be lending credence to the opposition when they say (as this shooter also said) that the mainstream media and the system are trying to hide things from the people.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.