New Zealand shootings.

12467…13

Comments

  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    And re the media coverage; we’ve already had a racist stabbing referencing it.

    And now in Utrecht

    Sadly this may turn out to be a revenge action for NZ massacres. And I dare say it will not end at this. Depressing to say the least.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    rjsterry wrote:
    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.

    Yes it has to be credible, but to analyse pages of manifesto, which the previously linked article states is deliberately incendiary and knowingly spreading untruths, doesn't really help anything and deepens the divide.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,697
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    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.

    Yes it has to be credible, but to analyse pages of manifesto, which the previously linked article states is deliberately incendiary and knowingly spreading untruths, doesn't really help anything and deepens the divide.

    Certainly agree that the media could do better on this.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 8,744
    Yes agree analysing the manifesto of someone so misguided is not helpful.

    Bit of an aside but it seems this NZ terrorist guy in common with many terrorists have no real history in the religion they claim to be defending. Even if they have been nominally Christian or Muslim previously they are often newly radicalised - it seems a kind of psychological obsession with the ideology. It'd be interesting to understand more about the psychology of that - is it similar psychologically to getting hooked on more trivial things - cycling for example - or infatuation with sexual partner in the early stages of a relationship.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    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".

    It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

    If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

    Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.
  • timothyw
    timothyw Posts: 2,482
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    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".

    It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

    If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

    Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.
    Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    TimothyW wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    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".

    It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

    If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

    Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.
    Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

    calls for controlling the press or freedom of speech. theyre a slippery slope.
  • timothyw
    timothyw Posts: 2,482
    Can you give me some examples of what you're referring to?

    You are aware that we already have laws around hate speech in the UK?

    Have they led to a slippery slope? What has slipped where?

    Do you think it is reasonable for the mass media to give a platform for the thoughts of mass murderers then? You think they're bad right (mass murderers...)?
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Also, "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want to whomever you want.

    Unfortunately, the stiff upper lip of 'sticks and stones' isn't stiff enough to resist gunfire.
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    TimothyW wrote:
    Can you give me some examples of what you're referring to?

    You are aware that we already have laws around hate speech in the UK?

    Have they led to a slippery slope? What has slipped where?

    Do you think it is reasonable for the mass media to give a platform for the thoughts of mass murderers then? You think they're bad right (mass murderers...)?

    look up this thread

    yes I'm aware of the laws around hate speech

    They haven't led to a slippery slope because they're very carefully balanced against the need for freedom of speech and thought.

    Yes i think its reasonable to for mass media to give a platform to the thoughts of mass murderers

    No i don't think its appropriate for the media to promote the thoughts of mass murderers where those thoughts seek to encourage criminal behaviour. and there are several laws ensuring that is the case, along with case law to clarify the boundaries between what is and what isnt acceptable.

    are you 6 years old?
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Also, "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want to whomever you want.

    Unfortunately, the stiff upper lip of 'sticks and stones' isn't stiff enough to resist gunfire.

    That much is evident
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,266
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    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".

    It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

    If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

    Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.

    That also goes for you. If you don't like the opinion that the media should behave responsibly and think about how they report these events, that's fine. You are free to disagree.

    You are constructing a straw man argument, which is that anyone who disagrees with you wants to censor the media. I'm not going to help you.
  • timothyw
    timothyw Posts: 2,482
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    TimothyW wrote:
    Can you give me some examples of what you're referring to?

    You are aware that we already have laws around hate speech in the UK?

    Have they led to a slippery slope? What has slipped where?

    Do you think it is reasonable for the mass media to give a platform for the thoughts of mass murderers then? You think they're bad right (mass murderers...)?

    look up this thread
    So you can't give me an example then? I think it's fair to say we have a different perspective and I'm honestly curious to find out what you're referring to?

    Thought control sounds bad. If I've missed something I'd like to know what.
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    TimothyW wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    TimothyW wrote:
    Can you give me some examples of what you're referring to?

    You are aware that we already have laws around hate speech in the UK?

    Have they led to a slippery slope? What has slipped where?

    Do you think it is reasonable for the mass media to give a platform for the thoughts of mass murderers then? You think they're bad right (mass murderers...)?

    look up this thread
    So you can't give me an example then? I think it's fair to say we have a different perspective and I'm honestly curious to find out what you're referring to?

    Thought control sounds bad. If I've missed something I'd like to know what.

    well i also advocate culling the lowest 10% of IQ in the country every ten years. It's sustainable and if it were in force there wouldn't be the sort of outraged sixthformer comments that you come out with.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,738
    I wouldn’t advocate suicide, vino.

    U ok hun?
    _
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I wouldn’t advocate suicide, vino.

    U ok hun?

    Im ok babes you ok Teagar?

    can you take taxis yet?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,738
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    TimothyW wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    TimothyW wrote:
    Can you give me some examples of what you're referring to?

    You are aware that we already have laws around hate speech in the UK?

    Have they led to a slippery slope? What has slipped where?

    Do you think it is reasonable for the mass media to give a platform for the thoughts of mass murderers then? You think they're bad right (mass murderers...)?

    look up this thread
    So you can't give me an example then? I think it's fair to say we have a different perspective and I'm honestly curious to find out what you're referring to?

    Thought control sounds bad. If I've missed something I'd like to know what.

    well i also advocate culling the lowest 10% of IQ in the country every ten years. It's sustainable and if it were in force there wouldn't be the sort of outraged sixthformer comments that you come out with.

    Glad we can fully assign you to the crazies along with Coopster who we don’t need to bother replying to.

    Have fun.
    _
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    teagar gets the hump.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,697
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    And re the media coverage; we’ve already had a racist stabbing referencing it.

    And now in Utrecht

    Appears to have been unrelated to terrorism.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,738
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    And re the media coverage; we’ve already had a racist stabbing referencing it.

    And now in Utrecht

    Appears to have been unrelated to terrorism.

    Yes. Should not have jumped to the conclusion.
    _
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    TimothyW wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    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".

    It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

    If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

    Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.
    Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

    How about Shami Chakrabati going on the Andrew Marr show to argue that the internet cannot “continue to be an ungoverned space”?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,697
    Shortfall wrote:
    TimothyW wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    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".

    It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

    If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

    Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.
    Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

    How about Shami Chakrabati going on the Andrew Marr show to argue that the internet cannot “continue to be an ungoverned space”?

    I don't think that is an idea that you can entirely pin on Shami Chakrabati. You'll have to explain how updating existing legislation to cover online publication amounts to 'thought control'
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    The aggressive liberal condemnation, seeking to ostracise those with other view points?

    Total snowflake behaviour

    Quite how chakrabati has any credibility is beyond me; rewarded with a peership for a whitewash report that says there’s no anti semitism in the Labour Party when it’s there for all to see.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    edited March 2019
    rjsterry wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    TimothyW wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    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".

    It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

    If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

    Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.
    Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

    How about Shami Chakrabati going on the Andrew Marr show to argue that the internet cannot “continue to be an ungoverned space”?

    I don't think that is an idea that you can entirely pin on Shami Chakrabati. You'll have to explain how updating existing legislation to cover online publication amounts to 'thought control'

    I'm not pinning it all on her, she's just part of a wider movement of people who want to limit free speech. Other examples would be university student unions attempting to "no platform" speakers like Peter Hitchens and George Galloway, its also the "Hacked Off" lot and Levenson. It's the salami slicer effect. Bit by bit is how they do it until suddenly we wake up one day and realise that certain opinions are suddenly not allowed, even in private.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,697
    Aggressive liberal condemnation of what exactly, Vino? Help me out here, because it's really difficult to ostracise you for your alternative views when you don't actually put forward any views.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,738
    rjsterry wrote:
    Aggressive liberal condemnation of what exactly, Vino? Help me out here, because it's really difficult to ostracise you for your alternative views when you don't actually put forward any views.

    Beyond “culling” bottom 10% on an IQ basis every decade?
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,697
    Shortfall wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    TimothyW wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    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".

    It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

    If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

    Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.
    Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

    How about Shami Chakrabati going on the Andrew Marr show to argue that the internet cannot “continue to be an ungoverned space”?

    I don't think that is an idea that you can entirely pin on Shami Chakrabati. You'll have to explain how updating existing legislation to cover online publication amounts to 'thought control'

    I'm not pinning it all on her, she's just part of a wider movement of people who want to limit free speech. Other examples would be university student unions attempting to "no platform" speakers like Peter Hitchens and George Galloway, its also the "Hacked Off" lot and things like Levenson. It's the salami slicer effect. Bit by bit is how they do it until suddenly we wake up one day and realise that certain opinions are suddenly not allowed, even in private.
    I think you are muddling up two quite different things. I agree that the whole no platform thing is pretty ridiculous. If nothing else it deprives people of the opportunity to point and laugh at Galloway :). That's quite a different thing from the suggestion that the rules that apply to publications should also apply equally to things posted on line on public forums. That's not infringing free speech, just holding online public discourse to the same standard as other media.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,697
    Have to say, it is remarkable that a far-right terrorist murders 50 Muslims and some people want to make it all about liberals. Talk about ignoring reality.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    rjsterry wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    TimothyW wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    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".

    It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

    If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

    Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.
    Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

    How about Shami Chakrabati going on the Andrew Marr show to argue that the internet cannot “continue to be an ungoverned space”?

    I don't think that is an idea that you can entirely pin on Shami Chakrabati. You'll have to explain how updating existing legislation to cover online publication amounts to 'thought control'

    I'm not pinning it all on her, she's just part of a wider movement of people who want to limit free speech. Other examples would be university student unions attempting to "no platform" speakers like Peter Hitchens and George Galloway, its also the "Hacked Off" lot and things like Levenson. It's the salami slicer effect. Bit by bit is how they do it until suddenly we wake up one day and realise that certain opinions are suddenly not allowed, even in private.
    I think you are muddling up two quite different things. I agree that the whole no platform thing is pretty ridiculous. If nothing else it deprives people of the opportunity to point and laugh at Galloway :). That's quite a different thing from the suggestion that the rules that apply to publications should also apply equally to things posted on line on public forums. That's not infringing free speech, just holding online public discourse to the same standard as other media.

    surely writing things online makes you liable under existing legislation regarding libel, incitement and court instructions?

    Other media are publishers and get held to a higher standard because of their reach and resources. I vaguely remember some bizarre case where a US publisher (think NYT or WSJ) was sued for libel in a UK court and could prove that only about 12 people had read the online article. They lost but damages were peanuts.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,266
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    The aggressive liberal condemnation, seeking to ostracise those with other view points?

    Total snowflake behaviour

    Quite how chakrabati has any credibility is beyond me; rewarded with a peership for a whitewash report that says there’s no anti semitism in the Labour Party when it’s there for all to see.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Categories