Mass Shooting in Christchurch, NZ Mosque | 14th March 2019

[Zlatan 7]

For me the problem with broadcasting the footage of the murders is that, while 99 people out of 100 might be appalled by it - hell, even 999 people out of 1000 - there are always those outliers that would be inspired by it. And the 999 people are probably the ones who would never consider going on a murderous rampage anyway. Those people dont need the exposure to something like this to show them it is wrong, they know it anyway.

Even setting aside the question of broadcasting the footage itself, merely reporting these atrocities as widely as we do sometimes feels like it fetishises terrorism. I always picture the next jihadi wannabee watching on TV thinking, I could have done a better job than that, or I would do this or that differently to make sure I killed more people. I imagine it being almost like each atrocity gets a "score" and the next person sees it and thinks, right, this is the score to beat, I have to do it better, I have to be more efficient, I have to kill more people, I have to make the scene more spectacular, more dramatic. Its the same with these school shootings in America as well.

I dont know what to do about that, and I have given it a lot of thought over the years. I certainly do not advocate brushing these news stories under the carpet - either not reporting them, or underreporting them, in order to deprive the incidents of oxygen and the terrorists of the "glory" or notoriety they seek. People have a right to know what is going on. But I do think the fame these terrorists get, even after death, is part of the incentive - and a not insignificant part of it at that. They see it as giving meaning to their boring, uneventful, inconsequential lives. They do something that goes down in history, their names, or at least their deeds, live on, and maybe change the course of history.

I think broadcasting their deeds live exacerbates that problem many times over. It is a step in the wrong direction. As I said before, it subjects. say, 999 people out of 1000 to something that will deeply, deeply unsettle them, to ensure they never do something they would never have done anyway. But for the 1000th person that might be thinking about doing something like this, my guess is it only increases the appeal. It shows them the world WILL see what they do, it will be dumbfounded by it, their deeds will be broadcast into every living room around the world. For people looking for notoriety, it ratchets up the notoriety on offer to even higher levels.

If you want to tell me that this 1000th person, this potential mass murderer, this complete outlier of a human being, is thinking about mass murder, but is going to watch a video of it and think, actually, that is really horrible, I dont think I am going to do that after all? I guess it is possible, but I dont buy it. I think the person capable of these actions sees this video in a completely different light to the rest of us.

Yes, I agree with everything written here. It’s my exact thoughts that I tried putting across but not as well.

I think maybe the way forward is reporting the incident but putting absolutely no focus on the person who carried out the attack at all, no need for Their name, their background (he was a sweet kid nonsense), the details and maps showing details of what went on of the incident itself. Glorifying the weapons, the equipment. It’s all becoming too normalised.

All the focus should be on the lives lost, and the people who helped.
That will still show the destruction that terrorism causes but without glorifying what some knobhead has done. They should get no exposure at all.

 

[adexkola]

That's a pretty compelling example, but substantively different on two points.

Replaying the footage of an attack and showing the aftermath of an attack have the same benefit - visceral horror, occasionally leading to social revolt - but the aftermath does not pose the same risks of inspiring others and normalising violence and hatred. Psychologically we just don't process it the same way.

The other is that people could live in ignorance of the nasty reality of Emmitt Till's life, and the lives he represented. The dam needed to burst. I don't think you can draw a remotely useful parallel to your imagined death, or the deaths here. Right wing violence may be underreported but it is not unacknowledged and it does not lack for moments of true terror to grip society. We've had lots of that already and repeated the same futile process. That's available at our fingertips right now. That isn't what is preventing society from taking action.

Its practical value is on an individual level and unfortunately, that practical value is not the kind people are preaching about. We do things every day for bad reasons and rationalise them in wonderfully complex ways to make them sound enlightened. That just isn't the case here. We don't have good solutions, but it is irresponsible to claim this is part of the solution.

Regarding the bolded, I do think right wing violence is more unacknowledged than underreported. Especially by those with the power and authority to clamp down on it. When you have Trump saying stuff like "good people on both sides", and that it's not that big of a problem... he sets the tone and priority for how agencies act.

 

[Kaos]

Just had to read on my facebook feed someone sharing a post claiming it to be a hoax . Clicked on the comments, and it was just a wall of people agreeing, and highlighting all types of inconsistencies in it. I just find it bizarre that people go to so much effort to try and prove these events to be some sort of "false flag" and the number of people who agree with that. I don't even know if there has actually ever been any proven false flag attacks, let alone one in NZ.

I don’t wish harm on anyone’s loved ones but I do wonder how these very same people would feel if it footage of their relatives being murdered were dismissed as a false flag.

Not to mention it makes no sense. What’s the agenda here? New Zealand isn’t exactly some gun nut nation.

 

[berbatrick]

I'm still mad about Erdogan.

The displaying of victims of communal violence to whip up counter-violence is a common tactic. An Indian state government allowed a "funeral march" of 58 Hindu acitvists killed by Muslims, within a week there had been more than 1000 Muslims killed across that state. That govt was re-elected with a record margin a few months later.

He knows what he's doing and what he's unleashing - he belongs right in the gutter with the likes of Molyneux et al who inspired the shooter.

 

[ZupZup]

One of my issues with the broadcasting of the video is that it's giving the killer exactly what he wants. He wants people to see it... it's the whole reason he streamed the video in the first place. I suspect the more notoriety, the happier he will be about his actions.

I think the NZ PM has it right when she won't even say his name. These sick people feed off the reaction.

 

[MadMike]

One of my issues with the broadcasting of the video is that it's giving the killer exactly what he wants. He wants people to see it... it's the whole reason he streamed the video in the first place. I suspect the more notoriety, the happier he will be about his actions.

I think the NZ PM has it right when she won't even say his name. These sick people feed off the reaction.

We shouldn't give a feck about what he does or doesn't want. We should do what's best for the people regardless.

Personally, I don't see what showing it achieves. This is 2019. If people are curious to see it, they can find it in 5 mins on the internet. It just puts the victims' families in the position of indignity where their loved one last moments are playing on out on mainstream media. Who're we trying to scare off, the average middle-aged person that watches 10 o'clock news? Use it as part of targeted educational or de-radicalization course material if you feel it will achieve something. The average joe doesn't need to see the vid to register the horror that transpired.

 

[RedTiger]

I'm still mad about Erdogan.

The displaying of victims of communal violence to whip up counter-violence is a common tactic. An Indian state government allowed a "funeral march" of 58 Hindu acitvists killed by Muslims, within a week there had been more than 1000 Muslims killed across that state. That govt was re-elected with a record margin a few months later.

He knows what he's doing and what he's unleashing - he belongs right in the gutter with the likes of Molyneux et al who inspired the shooter.

It's so blatant what he's doing what he expects to achieve, he's disgusting for using this for his own ambitions.

 

[nimic]

We shouldn't give a feck about what he does or doesn't want. We should do what's best for the people regardless.

I think the point is that "giving him what he wants" might very easily translate into motivation for other people to do the same.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

Was abroad when I first received the video of the attack in a whatsapp group, and just like when there was any other attack on innocent people - I was fecking enraged. Why are there so many more good people in the world than bad, but we are yet forced to mourn and be shocked by inhumanity? There are many answers for that.

But fecking hell, big up New Zealand and Jacinda Ardern. [Can't forget Eggboy!! ] Their reaction has given warmth to where there was cold. God is everywhere.

Innalillahi'Wa'Inna'Ilayhi'Raji'oon.

Love, altruism; humanity - will win. Whatever it takes.

Interesting absence of posts from certain posters in this thread. Usually they're very quick to post anti-muslim rehetoric and misquoted excerpts from the Quran to propagate their hate-filled bigoted right wing agenda.

Noticed that.

NZ has been absolutely amazing throughout this tragedy. Got this a message from a friend whose relative was shot dead.

• Immediately called it terrorism.
• NZ flag at half mast
• Raised over £2.5 so far
• Gun laws changed
• Mosques now patrolled
• Sincere mourning throughout the country
• Prime Minister meeting all Islamic leaders
• Multiple vigils throughout NZ
• Major events cancelled
• NZ's supporting and escorting Muslims in case of fear
• No fake news and genuine disgust at terror attack
• Some local companies providing water and fruit at vigils
• Government paying funeral costs
• Air NZ lowered air costs so people could visit those mourning and wanting to attend funerals
• Made it illegal to repost videos
• Classified as a national tragedy

 

[Synco]

Replaying the footage of an attack and showing the aftermath of an attack have the same benefit - visceral horror, occasionally leading to social revolt - but the aftermath does not pose the same risks of inspiring others and normalising violence and hatred. Psychologically we just don't process it the same way.

I agree there's a clear difference between seeing/showing the aftermath of killings and the acts of killing themselves, especially when in moving pictures. But I don't think a universal formula can be found. For example, the current public spotlight on lethal police violence in the US has a lot to do with video material being published quite soon after an incident.

What certainly seperates the Christchurch video from most other footage is its deliberate snuff and propaganda character, taken from the murderer's perspective, just like the ISIS-produced videos of a few years ago. The perpetrator himself meant it to be published, which makes this case different to most others.

 

[Sky1981]

Matt Taylor, former Corporal at Royal Marines (1999-2009) Wrote this on Quora.

Just like after the Bataclan and Manchester, I’m appalled at the mass-murder of so many innocent people.

It’s a very human response, and it’s perfectly natural to be emotional afterwards.

But seriously, leaders need to lead.

Take a few days after it, take a deep breath, and then compose yourselves, and take logical and measured steps to help.

I’m genuinely flabbergasted and astounded at the response.

What, like its all fecking PewDiePies fault now?

Why do they think the gunman purposely mentioned the bloke?!

Honestly, that the Governments of the world cannot open their eyes and see what is blatantly obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense, truly stuns me.

Let me drop some logic bombs on anybody that lives under a fecking rock and hasn't figured this out yet.

Seeing rows of dead kids drives depressed, joyless, directionless young white blokes to rage, blind hatred, and mass-murder a thousand times more effectively than salty quips from young lads with quirky YouTube channels.

The bombs dropped on babies by every American President for 25 years regardless of party in the likes of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, drives depressed, joyless, directionless young lads with the same religious ideology as the people of those nations, to rage, blind hatred, and mass-murder a thousand times more effectively than crass Tweets or bigoted Facebook statuses and blogs on social media.

Our leaders don’t address any of the big issues, they wash all of their hands of any blame, and then, the most criminal of all, they do the complete opposite of what they should do and lay the blame on trivially insignificant things instead.

They play 100% into the narratives set by despicable mass-murderers and terrorist organizations, and push the narrative that the murderers themselves wanted to be propagated in the first place!

Absolute madness.

It’s like they hear the terrorists say “The point of my actions is to sew division and cause a war!” and they go “Naaah.. hes not doing it for that reason!” even though he just spelled it out.

He even writes it all down in massive manifesto, sends it to everyone, and then says it on a video, and the fecking “elites” go “We got you bro!”

“We need tolerance, patience, understanding, and BAN ALL THE THINGS!”

Seriously… what the feck is going on?

If I had to pick the single worst response I could think of, this would be it.

The governments of the west are furthering the narrative the killer wanted, and their stupidity will help push more idiots to his cause by driving angry young men to the brink ten thousand times faster.

And look at the other side of the coin.

You get mental religious fundamentalist shooting the shit out of people pretty regularly these days.

Sometimes, they even kill people in a special way (decapitation say) and they actually say “I am doing this for my God!” and they praise their God as they kill.

And then, they read verses from a Holy Book, and they kill the person in a sacrificial way, on purpose, while even telling you the page, paragraph, and line of the book they are killing for, and the special way they are doing it.

And our leaders go “Naaah! He’s not doing it for that reason!”

feck me.

It’s like my doctor saying “tell me what hurts Matt!” and me saying “My foot, my foot hurts doctor, you just drove a pitchfork through it you mad cnut” and he responds with “Come on Matt, tell me straight, have you got a sore thumb?”

The mad feckers tell us why they are doing it, and we totally ignore them. Then they tell us what they want, and we fall over ourselves to give them it.

We tell everyone their stories, we tell everyone their names, we publish their stupid fecking manifestos, we put their faces everywhere they wanted them to be, tell their stories where they wanted them told, and then, worst of all, weenact the legislation that they wrote that they wanted in their own manifestos!

It is so utterly absurd that If it wasn't all so tragic, I would honestly find it funny.

Majiid Nawaz talked about this at length years ago, and he has been proven right time and time again.

We respond to mass-slaughter by one group, with pianos and renditions of John Lennons “Imagine” and tell nice warm tales about people lighting candles and singing so we can avoid dealing with the real issue.

We ignore their voices as they cry about burying their children, which must surely annoy them even more, by insisting they arent really doing it for the reasons they tell us. Then we respond to mass-slaughter with moist eyes, gushing sentiment, and stupid songs outside train stations in Brussels.

Then we dust off the bombers and get back to doing things exactly as we were a week before.

Smart!

And the other side?

Jesus wept.

Those violent terrorists want to further a narrative that their foes are a protected class, that they are strangers in their own country, and that they don’t matter. That their communities and opinions don’t matter, and that they have no voice, no power, and their leaders strive to silence them and side with their enemies.

And in response to one massacre, when their foes have committed a dozen well publicized ones on European soil, and after each they were constantly told “If we change things, the terrorists win.. Love conquers hate!” and everyone wheeled out pianos, was not to say “if we change things terrorists win.”

No, it was to enact all of the measures suggested by the terrorist to start his precious war.

Crush them. Silence them. Ban them. Censor them.

The end result of course, is that this is going to get much worse.

More radical fundamentalists, more crazy far-right extremists.

Wonderful.

We are going to see Northern Ireland style gangs enacting their idiotic form of justice all across the world, white nationalists and xenophobes vs religious fundamentalists, warring in the streets, from London, to Lisbon, to Los Angeles.

Why do we keep calling them “the elites” when they are so short-sighted and uninformed, that it appears they couldn't run a piss up in a brewery?

Thoughts?

 

[mu4c_20le]

I think he sounds like every other nutter who spends far too much time on the internet.

 

[Sandyman]

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/20/asia/new-zealand-christchurch-gun-ban-intl/index.html

All military-style semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles and high-capacity magazines will be banned in New Zealand.

 

[Sultan]

Very influential figure in India amongts the Muslims

 

[Brwned]

I agree there's a clear difference between seeing/showing the aftermath of killings and the acts of killing themselves, especially when in moving pictures. But I don't think a universal formula can be found. For example, the current public spotlight on lethal police violence in the US has a lot to do with video material being published quite soon after an incident.

What certainly seperates the Christchurch video from most other footage is its deliberate snuff and propaganda character, taken from the murderer's perspective, just like the ISIS-produced videos of a few years ago. The perpetrator himself meant it to be published, which makes this case different to most others.

I think it's probably possible to have flexible rules, and distinguishing between police violence (and general everyday corruption) and terrorist activities is useful. The explicit propangda does take this up a notch but I think even implicit propaganda, which you can find in almost all terrorist and mass murder attacks, presents largely the same problem and so it seems sensible to treat them in largely the same way.

However I'm not sure asking people to resist that urge is a useful approach. They've been doing that for decades and it's only gotten worse as access has gotten greater. Laws on media circulation could be useful but inevitably come with their own risks. To me it's a very difficult problem to solve, but people who claim it isn't a problem are making it more dangerous.

 

[Raees]

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/ne...-updates-birmingham-mosques-attacked-16005754

The attacks on British mosques have started...

 

[Irish Jet]

Hearing about it was heart breaking, traumatisingand infuriating. Just like every other attack of its kind. It's simply not true that you need video evidence to feel that. There is nothing new that you can glean from this that you couldn't have gleaned from watching a right wing inspired mass murder from years ago, or from simply reading about this one. The reason you chose to watch the video of this event was not to inspire those feelings.

They have done dozens of media, criminology and sociology studies on this and the consensus is that it is harmful to broadcast the footage of a mass murderer / serial killer widely because it adds nothing and introduces the risk of others' using it as inspiration. And if you don't think things like this act as inspiration then you only need to look at the coast guard who tried to emulate Breivik not long ago.

We shouldn't be ashamed of our human nature but the evidence has been out for a long, long time, and it's never listened to. The moral and practical arguments for it only exist in ignorance of that evidence. What people are doing is just satiating a desire. I agree with @Synco, however, that the desire is not simply perversity.



That's a pretty compelling example, but substantively different on two points.

Replaying the footage of an attack and showing the aftermath of an attack have the same benefit - visceral horror, occasionally leading to social revolt - but the aftermath does not pose the same risks of inspiring others and normalising violence and hatred. Psychologically we just don't process it the same way.

The other is that people could live in ignorance of the nasty reality of Emmitt Till's life, and the lives he represented. The dam needed to burst. I don't think you can draw a remotely useful parallel to your imagined death, or the deaths here. Right wing violence may be underreported but it is not unacknowledged and it does not lack for moments of true terror to grip society. We've had lots of that already and repeated the same futile process. That's available at our fingertips right now. That isn't what is preventing society from taking action.

Its practical value is on an individual level and unfortunately, that practical value is not the kind people are preaching about. We do things every day for bad reasons and rationalise them in wonderfully complex ways to make them sound enlightened. That just isn't the case here. We don't have good solutions, but it is irresponsible to claim this is part of the solution.

I know you don’t need it. But it certainly brings the horror to life in a way hearing about it never could.

As far as I know regarding most studies (I’m not sure which ones you’re referring to, if you have them on hand please link) they’re referring to general media coverage and the direct correlation with that – particularly with regards to the images and notoriety of the shooter himself – Coverage people want to see and details they want to know - the graphic footage is for the most part what people do not want to see.

This attack has already received substantial media coverage (which I think in this age is inevitable) and the footage is still available to anyone who wants to seek it out, as I imagine any would be copycats are likely to do. A few studies I’ve looked at still said there’s no evidence one way or the other regarding actual graphic footage on it’s overall net impact. Not sure the relevance of the Breivik case as there was no comparable footage of the attack.

My point though which is particular to this case is the what the footage shows versus the portrayal of Muslims/Immigrants in general. They’ve been subjected to a mass dehumanisation campaign from the far right fringes to mainstream outlets for nearly 20 years. That was where the comparison to Communists in Vietman and Jews in central Europe are appropriate, similar to coverage in the 1960’s during the Civil Rights movement – The coverage of police brutality done far more to bring the reality home than just hearing about it in the news – A big difference between hearing about it and seeing police dogs ripping into terrified people – Particularly when a lot of people “hear” about it from sources dead set on spinning that reality to carry on said campaign - as they did with African American’s in 1960 and as they’re already doing with Muslims. There’s a moral issue here that doesn’t exist with a lot of mass shootings as I think the general public have been exposed to a narrative that needs challenging one way or the other.

People like myself watching it isn’t really the point. I’m talking about showing it to people for the very reason of making them uncomfortable, to challenge their perceptions they have from reading The Sun or the Daily Mail.

 

[RedSky]

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/ne...-updates-birmingham-mosques-attacked-16005754

The attacks on British mosques have started...

Disgrace, hope they catch those involved and throw them in prison for a few years.

 

[Zlatattack]

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/ne...-updates-birmingham-mosques-attacked-16005754

The attacks on British mosques have started...

Muslim communities in the UK are stupid and lazy when it comes to investment in ourselves. It always has to be dragged to betterment, rather than actively taking steps.

Remember the failed bombing attempts against masjids in Wolverhampton. Those were in 2013. At that point I advocated having proper security guards outside masjids, especially during large communal events. Our masjid pays to have it's alarm monitored - its a huge mosque, well funded, could easily pay for regular patrols.

I remember post 911 talking to my mates about the community needed a fund to help challenge the negative perception of us in the media. These convos were being had by teenagers nearly 20 years ago. To this day we don't have that. We don't have a legal time aimed at legally challenging media outlets spreading propaganda against us.

The Jewish community does. They've faced horrible discrimination for centuries in Europe - they've organised themselves to survive. We need our own version of AIPAC.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Matt Taylor, former Corporal at Royal Marines (1999-2009) Wrote this on Quora.



Thoughts?

I think he sounds like every other nutter who spends far too much time on the internet.

Precisely. No idea why it was shared.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

How about instead of showing video footage of pathetic, cowardly scumbags like this stalking around with guns like video game characters, they make them wear a go-pro helmet the moment they're arrested and cam it up showing his face for the entire duration of his trial and first month of sentence...

It'd give a real insight into the 'mind of killer' for those who are so fascinated with pieces of shit like this, they'd be able to see him 24 hours a day, and it'd show everyone what the real consequences of such actions are.

Although I'm obviously being facetious, such treatment would no doubt actually work to de-glamourise and de-mystify such utterly pathetic wastes of space like this.

Decades of uber-divisive politics, the news coverage and 'Natural Born Killers' style fetishising of such actions has created a radicalized far-right within the developed world. Something must be done to show people the actual, depressing, long-term reality these utter morons will endure.

 

[Abizzz]

Matt Taylor, former Corporal at Royal Marines (1999-2009) Wrote this on Quora.



Thoughts?

Any reason why some is bold and the paragraphs are one sentence long? Difficult to read just from a styling point, and then his thoughts come across very scattered too.

What is he actually saying?

 

[Brwned]

I know you don’t need it. But it certainly brings the horror to life in a way hearing about it never could.

As far as I know regarding most studies (I’m not sure which ones you’re referring to, if you have them on hand please link) they’re referring to general media coverage and the direct correlation with that – particularly with regards to the images and notoriety of the shooter himself – Coverage people want to see and details they want to know - the graphic footage is for the most part what people do not want to see.

This attack has already received substantial media coverage (which I think in this age is inevitable) and the footage is still available to anyone who wants to seek it out, as I imagine any would be copycats are likely to do. A few studies I’ve looked at still said there’s no evidence one way or the other regarding actual graphic footage on it’s overall net impact. Not sure the relevance of the Breivik case as there was no comparable footage of the attack.

My point though which is particular to this case is the what the footage shows versus the portrayal of Muslims/Immigrants in general. They’ve been subjected to a mass dehumanisation campaign from the far right fringes to mainstream outlets for nearly 20 years. That was where the comparison to Communists in Vietman and Jews in central Europe are appropriate, similar to coverage in the 1960’s during the Civil Rights movement – The coverage of police brutality done far more to bring the reality home than just hearing about it in the news – A big difference between hearing about it and seeing police dogs ripping into terrified people – Particularly when a lot of people “hear” about it from sources dead set on spinning that reality to carry on said campaign - as they did with African American’s in 1960 and as they’re already doing with Muslims. There’s a moral issue here that doesn’t exist with a lot of mass shootings as I think the general public have been exposed to a narrative that needs challenging one way or the other.

People like myself watching it isn’t really the point. I’m talking about showing it to people for the very reason of making them uncomfortable, to challenge their perceptions they have from reading The Sun or the Daily Mail.

Agreed. Yet you watch it anyway and rationalise it afterwards as a way to save the unenlightened folks from their base instincts. If you didn't have the desire to view the video in the first place, you wouldn't need the rationalisation, and from a distance you'd likely find the argument distasteful on a number of levels. On reflection, I've remembered why I don't get involved in these discussions. It's an ugly part of humanity, for me.

 

[adexkola]

I think the point is that "giving him what he wants" might very easily translate into motivation for other people to do the same.

Don't buy it.

 

[nimic]

Don't buy it.

You don't think live footage of his deed will inspire other people? He himself was clearly inspired by the 22nd July terrorist in Norway. He didn't livestream, but he did post a long manifesto which went into many of the same things as this terrorist did. These people don't just want to have the act committed, they want to be seen committing the act. And there's no doubt a live video would, will and probably already is being used to further radicalize other people. That's why he filmed it in the first place.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

Agreed. Yet you watch it anyway and rationalise it afterwards as a way to save the unenlightened folks from their base instincts. If you didn't have the desire to view the video in the first place, you wouldn't need the rationalisation, and from a distance you'd likely find the argument distasteful on a number of levels. On reflection, I've remembered why I don't get involved in these discussions. It's an ugly part of humanity, for me.

So well put.

I'd add that watching footage of people being murdered, unless you need to do so for security purposes, isn't just a breach of basic decency. It's also subtly helping to perpetuate the agenda of the murderer - this is what they'd want, this is their fantasy, and the hype that surrounds the bizarre amount of exposure these crimes now have is, without doubt, perpetuating more of them.

Just because something is available doesn't mean you have to watch it. And we need to regain control of the stimuli we're taking in as a society - choosing not to read The Sun, The Mail etc is a start, but we need to man-up and cut out the junk elsewhere - and gawping at the bloodlust fantasies come real of disgusting, murderous failures of society is certainly junk.

Would you watch a video of a serial rapist committing their offenses? Would such a video be able to be shown?

If not then why on Earth is watching actual murder a thing we're dealing with intelligent adults looking at...?

If you want to actually make a difference, donate money to help survivors of these tragedies.

Think for yourself, and control what's entering in to the most sacred temple you own - your perception.

 

[MadMike]

Any reason why some is bold and the paragraphs are one sentence long? Difficult to read just from a styling point, and then his thoughts come across very scattered too.

What is he actually saying?

I couldn't discern a cohesive argument either.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/ne...-updates-birmingham-mosques-attacked-16005754

The attacks on British mosques have started...

Feckin hell
Gonna need to start policing mosques around worship hours, soon.

 

[Sky1981]

Any reason why some is bold and the paragraphs are one sentence long? Difficult to read just from a styling point, and then his thoughts come across very scattered too.

What is he actually saying?

Its copy pasted from quora. I think he does raise a valid point on how we as a society refuses to see it as it is, and find excuses and studies and blame it on the individual, insteaf of acknowledging and trying to understand the root causes.

 

[dannyrhinos89]

I’m really glad taxes are paying for the Police to investigate some broken windows yet an elderly lady on my street had her house broke into during the night a few weeks ago, she was very upset and scared and not one measly officer turned up. God forbid somebody smashes a few windows though the whole Cavalry turn up then.

 

[MDFC Manager]

You don't think live footage of his deed will inspire other people? He himself was clearly inspired by the 22nd July terrorist in Norway. He didn't livestream, but he did post a long manifesto which went into many of the same things as this terrorist did. These people don't just want to have the act committed, they want to be seen committing the act. And there's no doubt a live video would, will and probably alreay is being used to further radicalize other people. That's why he fimed it in the first place.

Not just inspire the likes of himself, but also inspire (?) the islamists for revenge.

 

[RedTiger]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world...ootings-the-briton-who-survived-mosque-attack

 

[Mogget]

I’m really glad taxes are paying for the Police to investigate some broken windows yet an elderly lady on my street had her house broke into during the night a few weeks ago, she was very upset and scared and not one measly officer turned up. God forbid somebody smashes a few windows though the whole Cavalry turn up then.

This is a really strange post. What does one event have to do with the other?

 

[Kaos]

I’m really glad taxes are paying for the Police to investigate some broken windows yet an elderly lady on my street had her house broke into during the night a few weeks ago, she was very upset and scared and not one measly officer turned up. God forbid somebody smashes a few windows though the whole Cavalry turn up then.

So let’s just ignore the lunatic with a sledgehammer with an obvious hate-driven agenda towards a certain group of people, especially after the murder of 50 of the same group of people recently.

 

[Kaos]

Not just inspire the likes of himself, but also inspire (?) the islamists for revenge.

Which is exactly what they want.

These scumbags and Islamic extremists want the same thing, and we’re playing into both their hands by giving these atrocities an exposed platform.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Which is exactly what they want.

These scumbags and Islamic extremists want the same thing, and we’re playing into both their hands by giving these atrocities an exposed platform.

Exactly.

 

[Dave89]

I’m really glad taxes are paying for the Police to investigate some broken windows yet an elderly lady on my street had her house broke into during the night a few weeks ago, she was very upset and scared and not one measly officer turned up. God forbid somebody smashes a few windows though the whole Cavalry turn up then.

Why do people like you always turn this into a race to the bottom? How does something like that happen your poor neighbour, and rather than you just saying "We should be funding our police to investigate these things", you instead turn it to "we shouldn't be bothering to investigate obvious hate crimes?"

Honestly, I suspect if your boss didn't pay you, you'd demand that he didn't pay your colleagues either, rather than sorting your pay, wouldn't you?

 

[MJJ]

I’m really glad taxes are paying for the Police to investigate some broken windows yet an elderly lady on my street had her house broke into during the night a few weeks ago, she was very upset and scared and not one measly officer turned up. God forbid somebody smashes a few windows though the whole Cavalry turn up then.

Not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or you really cant see the difference between the two events.

 

[Sky1981]

Not just inspire the likes of himself, but also inspire (?) the islamists for revenge.

This. Imagine us living as minority in muslim country... that video is already widely circulated as propaganda against the west.

 

[Cait Sith]

There should be a ban on reporting mass killings like this. Whether it's a school massacre or terrorist attack or whatever. There should be a total press embargo. It has no positives to report about it. You won't be safer and there will be no prevention just because the press reports about it. Only negatives.

The right wing media use this tactics deliberately to create division all the time. They always report about crimes from refugees or migrants. In Germany, the mainstream media fell into this "mainstream fake news media" trap and started reporting over the top about every incident, including mentions of the background of the perpetrator ("German citizen with xy roots"). They literally created the AfD like this. Back in 2017 when there were elections, suddenly the candidates talked like 50 minutes total about immigration and refugees and like 20 seconds about education in a talkshow.

I don't know why an individual rape case should be reported nation-wide when there are thousands and thousands happening every year. Suddenly people feel unsafe even though it's just the media picking a few cases from over hundreds of thousand crimes a year.

Individual crime cases shouldn't be in the news, whether 1, 2 or 50 are killed. There is nothing to be gained.

 

[MadMike]

There should be a ban on reporting mass killings like this. Whether it's a school massacre or terrorist attack or whatever. There should be a total press embargo. It has no positives to report about it. You won't be safer and there will be no prevention just because the press reports about it. Only negatives.

Literally couldn't disagree more.

First of all the news spreads fast on the internet, the murderer streamed the whole thing remember. Do you censor the whole internet, if so how? Who choses what information gets shown and what is withheld?

This is how you end up with a North Korea style, totalitarian propaganda machine. A functioning democracy requires certain levels of freedom of information. And that involves the Government not controlling the media and the internet.