New Zealand shootings.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Whilst the idea of starving him of publicity has it's attraction it does seem inherently wrong to dictate to the media what they can report.

It's not about dictating to the media what they can report, it's just helpful for them to understand that what they broadcast has an impact on the actions of other people.

I totally get your argument but my belief in free speech is stronger.

Should Farage's refugee poster and references to 70 million Turks heading our way not have been reported?

Yaxley-Lennon is a more obvious media whore but should the media be encouraged to starve him of publicity?

Where do you draw the line re the FPV video the shooter uploaded?

I would not chose to watch it and if hosting it broke laws then I would expect the appropriate authorities to enforce them as swiftly as possible.

For clarity if I was Zuckerburg I would ensure it was not present on my sites.

rjsterry

bianchimoon wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Think this might be pertinent to this bit of the thread.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of ... -massacre/

Help me out, in the context of what this thread has descended to, is that Bellingcat report allowed? is it helping terrorism? or is it purely everyday pinion journalism?

It's pointing out that his 'manifesto' is largely sh*tposting. Specifically designed to generate reactions and misdirect. Stirring up conflict is part of his aim. Media outlets reposting the manifesto and the FPV unedited without comment are just helping him.

Clearly no-one should be pretending these things don't exist, but extra care needs to be taken to avoid just extending their publicity reach.

The causes are all 'false' in that they are all an attempt to put a pseudo-political or -religious justification for something fundamentally unjustifiable. What their claimed motivation is is not actually that interesting in the context of the attack. It's only important to the extent that people know that this kind of attack isn't limited to particular demographic groups.

Alejandrosdog

bianchimoon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

I'm getting lost as to why people who would normally be shouting for peoples rights think that the free press should follow some different rules/behaviours to cater for a minority of sick individuals who may or may not be swayed by what they've read in a newspaper, to the detriment of the majority who can see these acts for what they are.

Why don't you ask what guidelines they think the press ought to follow rather than assuming and getting angry at that same strawman argument.

why not answer your own question?

Give a man a fish....

Comments like that are neither funny, clever or worthy of your education

Its funny though

Alejandrosdog

rjsterry wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Think this might be pertinent to this bit of the thread.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of ... -massacre/

Help me out, in the context of what this thread has descended to, is that Bellingcat report allowed? is it helping terrorism? or is it purely everyday pinion journalism?

It's pointing out that his 'manifesto' is largely sh*tposting. Specifically designed to generate reactions and misdirect. Stirring up conflict is part of his aim. Media outlets reposting the manifesto and the FPV unedited without comment are just helping him.

Clearly no-one should be pretending these things don't exist, but extra care needs to be taken to avoid just extending their publicity reach.

The causes are all 'false' in that they are all an attempt to put a pseudo-political or -religious justification for something fundamentally unjustifiable. What their claimed motivation is is not actually that interesting in the context of the attack. It's only important to the extent that people know that this kind of attack isn't limited to particular demographic groups.

Instead of condemning alternative views and opinions it might be more helpful to educate people why the views are wrong or inconsistent with accepted norms.

rick_chasey

Alejandrosdog wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Think this might be pertinent to this bit of the thread.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of ... -massacre/

Help me out, in the context of what this thread has descended to, is that Bellingcat report allowed? is it helping terrorism? or is it purely everyday pinion journalism?

It's pointing out that his 'manifesto' is largely sh*tposting. Specifically designed to generate reactions and misdirect. Stirring up conflict is part of his aim. Media outlets reposting the manifesto and the FPV unedited without comment are just helping him.

Clearly no-one should be pretending these things don't exist, but extra care needs to be taken to avoid just extending their publicity reach.

The causes are all 'false' in that they are all an attempt to put a pseudo-political or -religious justification for something fundamentally unjustifiable. What their claimed motivation is is not actually that interesting in the context of the attack. It's only important to the extent that people know that this kind of attack isn't limited to particular demographic groups.

Instead of condemning alternative views and opinions it might be more helpful to educate people why the views are wrong or inconsistent with accepted norms.

Wondered when you’d turn up on the thread.

In your instance you don’t want to be educated.

thegreatdivide

While the authorities were asking the public and press not to share any of the video footage, that outlet of fair and just journalism the Daily Reich were straight in there this morning with multiple video fragments available to view. They stopped short of actual shooting clips, they just blacked it out and stuck the audio on. It was gradually cut back over the morning and I now note that the website is video free. The comments section was just sickening.

Alejandrosdog

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Think this might be pertinent to this bit of the thread.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of ... -massacre/

Help me out, in the context of what this thread has descended to, is that Bellingcat report allowed? is it helping terrorism? or is it purely everyday pinion journalism?

It's pointing out that his 'manifesto' is largely sh*tposting. Specifically designed to generate reactions and misdirect. Stirring up conflict is part of his aim. Media outlets reposting the manifesto and the FPV unedited without comment are just helping him.

Clearly no-one should be pretending these things don't exist, but extra care needs to be taken to avoid just extending their publicity reach.

The causes are all 'false' in that they are all an attempt to put a pseudo-political or -religious justification for something fundamentally unjustifiable. What their claimed motivation is is not actually that interesting in the context of the attack. It's only important to the extent that people know that this kind of attack isn't limited to particular demographic groups.

Instead of condemning alternative views and opinions it might be more helpful to educate people why the views are wrong or inconsistent with accepted norms.

Wondered when you’d turn up on the thread.

In your instance you don’t want to be educated.

Now now another instance of metropolitan know alls making judgement? Beware the rath of taxi drivers and the Mau Mau

DeVlaeminck

Pross wrote:

I'm not talking about this case in particular rather terrorism in general. Just refer to anyone who kills as a murderer / mass murderer irrespective of the cause they try to use to justifying the killing. Whilst the murders being terrorism related may affect the tariff (in the UK at least) they would still be tried for murder so just label them for what they are is all I'm suggesting.

..and finally, Ariana Grande fans got a shock tonight when a bomb went off in the foyer after the show killing a couple of dozen of them, police have the man thought to be responsible in custody, and now the weather ?

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm not talking about this case in particular rather terrorism in general. Just refer to anyone who kills as a murderer / mass murderer irrespective of the cause they try to use to justifying the killing. Whilst the murders being terrorism related may affect the tariff (in the UK at least) they would still be tried for murder so just label them for what they are is all I'm suggesting.

..and finally, Ariana Grande fans got a shock tonight when a bomb went off in the foyer after the show killing a couple of dozen of them, police have the man thought to be responsible in custody, and now the weather ?

There's obviously much more factual detail that could be given but why not? Ultimately the attack is intended to gain publicity and support for their cause whilst also stirring up hatred and retaliation that itself will further that cause so starve them of as much publicity as you can.

robert88

Pross wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm not talking about this case in particular rather terrorism in general. Just refer to anyone who kills as a murderer / mass murderer irrespective of the cause they try to use to justifying the killing. Whilst the murders being terrorism related may affect the tariff (in the UK at least) they would still be tried for murder so just label them for what they are is all I'm suggesting.

..and finally, Ariana Grande fans got a shock tonight when a bomb went off in the foyer after the show killing a couple of dozen of them, police have the man thought to be responsible in custody, and now the weather ?

There's obviously much more factual detail that could be given but why not? Ultimately the attack is intended to gain publicity and support for their cause whilst also stirring up hatred and retaliation that itself will further that cause so starve them of as much publicity as you can.

The real problem underlying this and other forms of extremism is that ways have been found to turn the internet into an amplifier. A comparatively small number of people can easily abuse channels like facebook, YouTube and Twitter in an attempt to legitimise their perverted philosophies. And they can do it under multiple anonymous identities.

Enough like-minded individual's fuel the frenzy and produce serial killers. Too little has been done to address the problem for fear of being accused of suppressing freedom of speech but hopefully this will change so haters and bigots will lose their platforms and bands of perverted followers.

robert88

Pross wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm not talking about this case in particular rather terrorism in general. Just refer to anyone who kills as a murderer / mass murderer irrespective of the cause they try to use to justifying the killing. Whilst the murders being terrorism related may affect the tariff (in the UK at least) they would still be tried for murder so just label them for what they are is all I'm suggesting.

..and finally, Ariana Grande fans got a shock tonight when a bomb went off in the foyer after the show killing a couple of dozen of them, police have the man thought to be responsible in custody, and now the weather ?

There's obviously much more factual detail that could be given but why not? Ultimately the attack is intended to gain publicity and support for their cause whilst also stirring up hatred and retaliation that itself will further that cause so starve them of as much publicity as you can.

The real problem underlying this and other forms of extremism is that ways have been found to turn the internet into an amplifier. A comparatively small number of people can easily abuse channels like facebook, YouTube and Twitter in an attempt to legitimise their perverted philosophies. And they can do it under multiple anonymous identities.

Enough like-minded individuals fuel the frenzy and produce serial killers. Too little has been done to address the problem for fear of being accused of suppressing freedom of speech but hopefully this will change so haters and bigots will lose their platforms and bands of perverted followers.

shirley_basso

It's not the 'production of serial killers' per se, but the issue of essentially giving them exactly what they want - providing a platform to air their views.

You could just as easily say an unknown individual has detonated a device but give no details on their name or race or the detectives investigation into their motives. So noone would ever know. Thus mostly defeating the point of the attack

robert88

Shirley Basso wrote:

It's not the 'production of serial killers' per se, but the issue of essentially giving them exactly what they want - providing a platform to air their views.

You could just as easily say an unknown individual has detonated a device but give no details on their name or race or the detectives investigation into their motives. So noone would ever know. Thus mostly defeating the point of the attack

Desirable as it is, practically impossible in today's environment.

FatTed

The security services call it terrorism because then a different set of laws apply

sgt.pepper

It's saddened me that the culture wars have reached here now. I honestly thought NZ would remain immune.

Alejandrosdog

Robert88 wrote:

Pross wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm not talking about this case in particular rather terrorism in general. Just refer to anyone who kills as a murderer / mass murderer irrespective of the cause they try to use to justifying the killing. Whilst the murders being terrorism related may affect the tariff (in the UK at least) they would still be tried for murder so just label them for what they are is all I'm suggesting.

..and finally, Ariana Grande fans got a shock tonight when a bomb went off in the foyer after the show killing a couple of dozen of them, police have the man thought to be responsible in custody, and now the weather ?

There's obviously much more factual detail that could be given but why not? Ultimately the attack is intended to gain publicity and support for their cause whilst also stirring up hatred and retaliation that itself will further that cause so starve them of as much publicity as you can.

The real problem underlying this and other forms of extremism is that ways have been found to turn the internet into an amplifier. A comparatively small number of people can easily abuse channels like facebook, YouTube and Twitter in an attempt to legitimise their perverted philosophies. And they can do it under multiple anonymous identities.

Enough like-minded individuals fuel the frenzy and produce serial killers. Too little has been done to address the problem for fear of being accused of suppressing freedom of speech but hopefully this will change so haters and bigots will lose their platforms and bands of perverted followers.

Hater and bigots? And are you the judge of what’s acceptable thought?

shirley_basso

https://twitter.com/themuslimvibe/statu ... 08064?s=20

Worth 4 mins of your time.

Alejandrosdog

The attacks in New Zealand were terrible but the proposed liberal backlash on thought is symptomatic of liberal bedwetting

slowmart

We are always going to have unstable people hang their hat on whatever hook suits their nature and see their fellow species as worthless and worthy of bias and hate.

In an age of better communication, forums like this, have become a landing pad for pastimes, hobbies and aligned political and religious views and beliefs.

Promoting hate to provide a platform for your own self serving political beliefs or self enrichment online isn’t new but it works with depressing regularity as we all seem want to have someone to hate. WTF is all that about, are we that screwed as a species?

rick_chasey

I’m naturally weary of blaming the medium rather than the message.

But, to be clear, this is just another example of online radicalisation, no different to your radicalised jihadi or any equvalent.

Curious how, predictably, some folk who are so quick to judge certain types of terror attacks and demand extreme and usually discriminatory acts cry “attacking free speech” and bemoan the response in this instance.

It’s almost like they can’t see the hypocracy. Or they can, but they don’t propose equality.

rick_chasey

And re the media coverage; we’ve already had a racist stabbing referencing it.

john80

The internet allow you to find like minded individuals with ease and minimises your exposure to the real world consequences of your views. If you went down the local pub or social club and started to spout the views that this guy was putting out on the internet then it would not be long before a kind hearted soul pointed out that your views were a bit messed up. It allows these individuals to get to a pent up state that literally their first social interaction is the act of violence and all those mini interventions people could have had in a direct conversation are lost.

Whilst you can argue for more responsible journalism I don't think you cannot report it. New Zealand will look to reduce consequence of idiots by using gun laws to reduce consequence. I would rather take a loon with fists over a couple of automatic weapons any day of the week.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

The internet allow you to find like minded individuals with ease and minimises your exposure to the real world consequences of your views. If you went down the local pub or social club and started to spout the views that this guy was putting out on the internet then it would not be long before a kind hearted soul pointed out that your views were a bit messed up. It allows these individuals to get to a pent up state that literally their first social interaction is the act of violence and all those mini interventions people could have had in a direct conversation are lost.

Whilst you can argue for more responsible journalism I don't think you cannot report it. New Zealand will look to reduce consequence of idiots by using gun laws to reduce consequence. I would rather take a loon with fists over a couple of automatic weapons any day of the week.

I'd certainly agree that that is a large part of it, whichever form of extremism we're talking about. Reinforcing this is the more mainstream background hum of the false idea that there is some fundamental incompatibility between being a Muslim* and European (in its widest sense) culture. It's one of the things that both the far right and the Islamists agree on.

*or for that matter a Jew.

john80

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

The internet allow you to find like minded individuals with ease and minimises your exposure to the real world consequences of your views. If you went down the local pub or social club and started to spout the views that this guy was putting out on the internet then it would not be long before a kind hearted soul pointed out that your views were a bit messed up. It allows these individuals to get to a pent up state that literally their first social interaction is the act of violence and all those mini interventions people could have had in a direct conversation are lost.

Whilst you can argue for more responsible journalism I don't think you cannot report it. New Zealand will look to reduce consequence of idiots by using gun laws to reduce consequence. I would rather take a loon with fists over a couple of automatic weapons any day of the week.

I'd certainly agree that that is a large part of it, whichever form of extremism we're talking about. Reinforcing this is the more mainstream background hum of the false idea that there is some fundamental incompatibility between being a Muslim* and European (in its widest sense) culture. It's one of the things that both the far right and the Islamists agree on.

*or for that matter a Jew.

You are right that there is no fundamental problem with islam and the west as after all it is just a religion like many others. There is a issue that needs to be nipped in the bud by all sides regarding priority of beliefs versus laws. For example if you believe that your religion gives you the right to discriminate against others when the law clearly states otherwise then good luck to you conforming to western values. This is just one example where a religion may differ from a states laws.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

The internet allow you to find like minded individuals with ease and minimises your exposure to the real world consequences of your views. If you went down the local pub or social club and started to spout the views that this guy was putting out on the internet then it would not be long before a kind hearted soul pointed out that your views were a bit messed up. It allows these individuals to get to a pent up state that literally their first social interaction is the act of violence and all those mini interventions people could have had in a direct conversation are lost.

Whilst you can argue for more responsible journalism I don't think you cannot report it. New Zealand will look to reduce consequence of idiots by using gun laws to reduce consequence. I would rather take a loon with fists over a couple of automatic weapons any day of the week.

I'd certainly agree that that is a large part of it, whichever form of extremism we're talking about. Reinforcing this is the more mainstream background hum of the false idea that there is some fundamental incompatibility between being a Muslim* and European (in its widest sense) culture. It's one of the things that both the far right and the Islamists agree on.

*or for that matter a Jew.

You are right that there is no fundamental problem with islam and the west as after all it is just a religion like many others. There is a issue that needs to be nipped in the bud by all sides regarding priority of beliefs versus laws. For example if you believe that your religion gives you the right to discriminate against others when the law clearly states otherwise then good luck to you conforming to western values. This is just one example where a religion may differ from a states laws.

There's more than a few Christians who have trouble conforming to western values.

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

And re the media coverage; we’ve already had a racist stabbing referencing it.

And now in Utrecht

kingstongraham

Alejandrosdog wrote:

The attacks in New Zealand were terrible but the proposed liberal backlash on thought is symptomatic of liberal bedwetting

Care to explain what you mean? It sounds a bit like "yes, I think mass murder is bad, but on the other hand I like memes and getting people annoyed".

DeVlaeminck

Shirley Basso wrote:

It's not the 'production of serial killers' per se, but the issue of essentially giving them exactly what they want - providing a platform to air their views.

You could just as easily say an unknown individual has detonated a device but give no details on their name or race or the detectives investigation into their motives. So noone would ever know. Thus mostly defeating the point of the attack

I'm not totally against what you are saying, you have a point, but I'd argue that reporting on and analysing the terrorist and their motivations is not the same as allowing them to air their views. It's one thing publishing his "manifesto" - I don't see how that really leads to greater understanding but in a demcracy you just can't keep people in the dark over important issues of the day. It's pretty standard in any theory of what democracy is that a free press is part of it.

What if we had adopted a similar approach with the IRA - reported bombs going off but not reported on who or why had planted them ? How far would you extend your policy - would it apply to the World Trade Centre attack - nobody would be told who was behind that - how would that tie into a debate on the war on terror the USA launched ?

You also have the problem that we live in an age of social media - if you don't report the facts then someone else will report their version of the facts and conspiracy theorists will have a field day.

shirley_basso

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

It's not the 'production of serial killers' per se, but the issue of essentially giving them exactly what they want - providing a platform to air their views.

You could just as easily say an unknown individual has detonated a device but give no details on their name or race or the detectives investigation into their motives. So noone would ever know. Thus mostly defeating the point of the attack

I'm not totally against what you are saying, you have a point, but I'd argue that reporting on and analysing the terrorist and their motivations is not the same as allowing them to air their views. It's one thing publishing his "manifesto" - I don't see how that really leads to greater understanding but in a demcracy you just can't keep people in the dark over important issues of the day. It's pretty standard in any theory of what democracy is that a free press is part of it.

What if we had adopted a similar approach with the IRA - reported bombs going off but not reported on who or why had planted them ? How far would you extend your policy - would it apply to the World Trade Centre attack - nobody would be told who was behind that - how would that tie into a debate on the war on terror the USA launched ?

You also have the problem that we live in an age of social media - if you don't report the facts then someone else will report their version of the facts and conspiracy theorists will have a field day.

Yeah I agree mostly with this. I don't know what the answer is, but by endless reporting, you are providing the mouthpiece/platform and thus agency for the actions carried out by the attacker.

The less you do this, the more futile these types of 'terrorist' attack become, as they don't really raise the profile of anything.

rjsterry

Shirley Basso wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

It's not the 'production of serial killers' per se, but the issue of essentially giving them exactly what they want - providing a platform to air their views.

You could just as easily say an unknown individual has detonated a device but give no details on their name or race or the detectives investigation into their motives. So noone would ever know. Thus mostly defeating the point of the attack

I'm not totally against what you are saying, you have a point, but I'd argue that reporting on and analysing the terrorist and their motivations is not the same as allowing them to air their views. It's one thing publishing his "manifesto" - I don't see how that really leads to greater understanding but in a demcracy you just can't keep people in the dark over important issues of the day. It's pretty standard in any theory of what democracy is that a free press is part of it.

What if we had adopted a similar approach with the IRA - reported bombs going off but not reported on who or why had planted them ? How far would you extend your policy - would it apply to the World Trade Centre attack - nobody would be told who was behind that - how would that tie into a debate on the war on terror the USA launched ?

You also have the problem that we live in an age of social media - if you don't report the facts then someone else will report their version of the facts and conspiracy theorists will have a field day.

Yeah I agree mostly with this. I don't know what the answer is, but by endless reporting, you are providing the mouthpiece/platform and thus agency for the actions carried out by the attacker.

The less you do this, the more futile these types of 'terrorist' attack become, as they don't really raise the profile of anything.

In the absence of credible news reporting (as imperfect as it is) people will just make stuff up. Social media gives them a platform to present that made up stuff as fact.

As an aside, I'm sure a few of us can remember when the BBC had to dub an actor's voice over Gerry Adams' words. Not sure that had any positive impact.