Well, like last time: Will we be forbidden from talking about important events in rational, straightforward language because assholes, children and the daft might respond badly when they overhear?

(Might other topics be foreclosed as well? Wars, holocausts, wanton power grabs of all sorts?)

I think these bad actors are going to respond badly whether or not their names make the news. Their chessboard isn't orderly and symmetrical as is our own: We shouldn't try to predict & accommodate their irrational responses at a cost to our own clarity.

Our own valuations of fame and notability are just not that special. The problem isn't with our humility. And we shouldn't flatter ourselves by imagining that limitations on our speech will satisfy mad men and villains. That's a kind of childish magical thinking that you can't afford.

Like I said last time: If you can't handle hearing the names of monstrous people without assuming that fame somehow diminishes their wretchedness, then I don't want to talk to you anyway.

> While mass shootings are too rare to allow
> for a statistically significant determination
> of whether or not media coverage helps lead
> to copycat murders, some researchers theorize
> that the same effect is in play.

Serious-ism? Statistical significance is nowhere to be found… But we're still talking about this?

"Some researchers theorize," but we're still talking about this?

Those researchers are theorize NOTHING regarding the precise mechanism of behavioral "leading" being foresworn, but merely the "same effect… in play," and we're still talking about this?

No.

There's a popular kind of ninnyperson out there, one who doesn't see academe (especially sociology) for the abattoir that it is, who takes this stuff far too seriously.

I try to avoid reading about these motherfuckers because I don't want to know their names. I don't want to know their mommy issues. I don't want to waste the brain cells on them.

I'm with Dwatney; it's a waste of my time. I understand what Sun News is trying to do; I just don't think it will make any difference. Especially today, with so many sources of information. For almost any event (well, at least any event that occurs in an urban areas), a few minutes of searching will uncover raw video that's been posted somewhere.

I think this is excellent and I fail to see why we haven't adopted the same position in the states. Suicide clusters happen for the same reason, and I can correlate the same situation abides in our culture with these mass shootings. It's suicide in a blaze of glory, take out everyone who done me wrong and I'll be a hero. And it works. Several of the latest shooters have themselves hero-worshipped Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. If you recognize their names, then that's part of the problem. We know the offenders way more than we know the victims. It's just wrong. Bravo to Canada for sensing that too.

You censor it and then you get regular folks thinking of themselves as detectives and putting names out there, followed by innocent people getting wrongly accused.

certainly points out the sensational way that news is consumed... as arguments for both sides show. The informational aspects of news have morphed into a freak show.

I dunno. I go along with the old rule of reporting--Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. Giving incomplete information is just bad journalism. Of course fewer and fewer people give a damn about THAT nowadays. Just get it out there! Who cares if it's right?

But if I was a sensation seeking murderer, I could take that article as a challenge. You know?

Besides, just reading about the deed itself could push my buttons to do something like it, never mind who did it originally. So I guess they better not tell what happened, either. Just that some guy (or girl) did a Bad Thing, and that's all I need to know about it.

Gosh, where are all the people who have been calling for this for years>

Oh, that includes me, Basically until the perpetrator is on trial or dead. Mat not stop others, and if it does we will probably never know,

Ah well, I have never understood the compulsion to slow and gawk at ambulance and police attending at a car crash either - if you can`t help, move along.

Regarding rubberneckers: One distinct memory I have from living in South Florida was how a wreck (even a minor one) on one side of I-95 would create a traffic jam on the opposite side, because of people slowing down (way down, like to 20 MPH) to gawk. And it would create a "standing wave" in the traffic, a place where traffic would continue to be backed up hours after the wreck had been cleared away. You'd get to a place where traffic was backed up, creep along, creep along, finally get to where the backup ended and there would be... nothing.

Shucks… Hard to believe that typical Americans would use an issue like this, EVEN an issue like this, to feign social elevation over others.

Especially when those others, are, y'know, mass murderers.

But hey golly, I trust your judgment!

Jus' sayin'— These are stories that cause ninnies to make gun control noises. I think you should equip yourself to speak frankly about the particulars of these events —including specific personalities and qualities of human nature— with people who don't have your best interests in mind.

You shouldn't trade away your rights in an effort to convey imperious sophistication: I'm too cool to think about those little broken teacups, so you all you big burly law enforcement officers should just do what you need to do....

Society has changed and that has both been caused and effected by changing standards.

It used to be that all the heroes were like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, Roy Rogers, etc. Stand up guys that everyone could really respect.

Now some of the "heroes" are really anti-heroes. An example is Bryan Cranston's character in Breaking Bad. Do you really want to call him a hero? But essentially that is what they made him. Another show was The Sopranos. A mafia family were the "good guys".

That leads impressionable people into thinking that way. I don't know what the solution is, but try thinking of that when you're watching movies and TV. And look at your kids and think "Do I want my kids to see this?"

The Mafia got its start as a fairly legitimate private security co op for the neighborhoods that the cops couldnt be bothered to patrol. And got most of the money and power from selling people things the nanny state said people were too childish to have/experience.

It aint to hard to paint them as the good guys. Or the bad guys. They act the same way government does. Just with far greater efficiency

I'm one of those who has advocated this policy for years, especially for sensational crimes such as terrorism. Tell us about the crime, but keep the bad guy's name, face, motivations, and manifesto (if any) secret, or at least out of the media.

Dean Ing deserves credit for this idea, which he published years before most people expected the US to become a target.

It ain't to hard to paint them as the good guys. Or the bad guys. They act the same way government does. Just with far greater efficiency -- lujlp at June 9, 2014 1:45 PM

I won't disagree with that. In general though the mafia has been considered bad for years. But the point is that in general they have always been considered bad.

Same with drug dealers and other things. Look at Dexter, The Blacklist and other similar shows. The main character is nominally a bad guy. That is the point I'm trying to get at. They are now celebrating that instead of the the good guys.

That is the point I'm trying to make.

> advocated this policy for years, especially
> for sensational crimes

"Especially"?

> such as terrorism.

Terrorism. Well! There are gradients of crime under discussion here, but these verges excite no details from you.

So, the vibe I'm getting here is, like, youz guyz are totes cool with having a bunch of information about violence in the domestic civil realm withheld from you as a matter of course. There's a whole range of information about life and death in your culture that you've decided you just do not need to know.

Presumably this includes the tawdry celebrity stuff... The OJ Simpsons and the like. But I'm just using that as an example! The fact that personalities prone to such explosive behavior are rarely identified theretofore —and never by anyone in this forum— arouses no curiosity in your heart. You're not interested in strengthening your own insight about darkness in human souls... You'll happily offer your ignorance to any sociologist with a hunch…

…A hunch, based on nothing at all, that suppressed speech is the best response to murder.



Sometimes I think I'm too much of a prick to people on this here blog.

Har! Just kidding!

Most days I think there's more bitchslapping to be done than two palms and one calendar will permit.

I don't believe in the ostrich principle; I think open, honest, rational discourse and analysis is ultimately the only meaningful way to attempt to solve problems (to the extent that they can reasonably be solved). If you don't even know the basic cause of something, how can you begin to solve it?

> I don't want to know their mommy issues

I haven't been following this event closely but from the little I have, it seems to be politically motivated (i.e. violent anarchism or something), not a non-political shooting like Rodgers.

> The fact that personalities prone to such explosive behavior are rarely identified theretofore —and never by anyone in this forum

Well, some of these people can be identified beforehand, since some of these anarchists post things online where they advocate for killing cops. E.g.: http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/06/05/best-luck-justin-bourque-2/
These people don't go away if you ignore them, this community is there, and among its fringe elements are some who consider violence ... one way to help prevent this might be to establish rational discourse with these people to help them understand why their ideas are wrong. E.g. I've using reasoned arguments before to help show some anarchists why their ideas were wrong.

If you don't even know the basic cause of something, how can you begin to solve it?

Off topic, but never ask this question of feminists, it enrages them.

Fine, Sun News of Canada: I'll just assume that all shooters are named Mohammed until you tell me otherwise. Now you are promoting izzlamophobiya, good job.