Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Townhallsavoy on July 20, 2012, 06:51:07 PM
-
This video was brought up on another site:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
The media in America made the VA Tech shooter into an anti-hero. He wanted attention? He got it. Should the media take a stance on mass shootings and not dramatize the story?
Are they partially responsible for these events?
-
Bottom line, people are the problem. People that are nuts, or have a screw loose, are going to do stupid shit regardless. They come from all walks of life. Case in point, this guy was probably a genius. He had a degree in neuroscience, and had been going to Colorado for his PhD.
It's not the media's fault. It's not the gun's fault. It's not the music's fault. It's the decisions that people make.
-
Did Batman begat Joker?
Age old question with no answer.
Do super criminals gravitate to area with super heroes?
Remember that horse Batbaro? Did we get minute by minute horse health updates because we all cared so passionately or did people care because they were getting constant updates?
Are we obsessed with Lindsay Lohan's exploits because she is interesting or because we can't escape her?
And it goes further. Does Cheer really get clothes cleaner? Or do we think it does because the ads tell us so?
-
Bottom line, people are the problem. People that are nuts, or have a screw loose, are going to do stupid shit regardless. They come from all walks of life. Case in point, this guy was probably a genius. He had a degree in neuroscience, and had been going to Colorado for his PhD.
It's not the media's fault. It's not the gun's fault. It's not the music's fault. It's the decisions that people make.
What influences their decisions?
Dr. Park Dietz, a psychiatrist, claims that the media is influencing crazy people to act a certain way.
-
What influences their decisions?
Dr. Park Dietz, a psychiatrist, claims that the media is influencing crazy people to act a certain way.
Maybe he was mad at his mom. Maybe his Dr. Pepper tasted flat. Maybe he was picked on in kindergarten. Maybe he just felt like it. The problem is, everybody feels the need to rush to blame something or somebody. Blame has to be assigned somewhere. There has to be something tangible we can point to.
I watch the news. I don't have the feeling of going and shooting something up. I played violent video games as a kid. I listened to violent music. I watched violent movies. I didn't shoot up a school, or a movie theater. I didn't act those things out somewhere. If somebody decides to do something based on what they saw, or heard, that is their own personal decision. The news didn't buy his guns, load his ammo, and cock the hammer. If we're going to go with the assumption that the news encourages this type of behavior, then there are alot of things on TV and radio that will need to be addressed. It's a ridiculous notion.
-
I know the media sensationalizes every fucking thing. And it gets old as shit.
-
I have a real good friend that is a psychologist. We have talked at length about people and what makes them crazy. What makes the mind snap. He has told me on numerous occasions that "all humans are crazy, for all our inherit "fucked-up-ness" down the generations, some of us are able to control ourselves better than others." He honestly believes we are all nuts to an extent and have some evil ways in us. This deal and others like it make me feel like he may be right.
-
I have a real good friend that is a psychologist. We have talked at length about people and what makes them crazy. What makes the mind snap. He has told me on numerous occasions that "all humans are crazy, for all our inherit "fucked-up-ness" down the generations, some of us are able to control ourselves better than others." He honestly believes we are all nuts to an extent and have some evil ways in us. This deal and others like it make me feel like he may be right.
I think the problem is we have a generation or two of motherfuckers that have never been told "no". Never learned right from wrong, and have never had their ass torn up for a consequence.
-
I think the problem is we have a generation or two of motherfuckers that have never been told "no". Never learned right from wrong, and have never had their ass torn up for a consequence.
I don't think it's a generational issue. Charles Whitman, Patrick Purdy, James Huberty, Andrew Kehoe...these type of people have been around forever.
Do we have more of these events now than we used to? I'm not sure. The media sure makes it look like it, with their non-stop coverage of anything and everything bringing our attention to these events. This may make it appear as if more of this goes on now than it used to.
But even if they are actually more prominent than they used to be, these types of crimes didn't just pop up with a recent generation.
-
I think the problem is we have a generation or two of motherfuckers that have never been told "no". Never learned right from wrong, and have never had their ass torn up for a consequence.
Because a bunch of fucking hippies and liberal politician made it politically incorrect to do so. You can't tell them no. You can't whip them. You can't punish them. Everyone makes the fucking team. We're a society of fucking brats now. Shit really gained steam in the 60's with that flower generation.
-
I don't think it's a generational issue. Charles Whitman, Patrick Purdy, James Huberty, Andrew Kehoe...these type of people have been around forever.
Do we have more of these events now than we used to? I'm not sure. The media sure makes it look like it, with their non-stop coverage of anything and everything bringing our attention to these events. This may make it appear as if more of this goes on now than it used to. But these types of crimes didn't just pop up with any specific recent generation.
Back then those were the exceptions. Now its too much the fucking norm. People need to get the shit beat out of them more. Its about time we hang people again and start whipping people with bamboo sticks like they do in the orient.
-
Back then those were the exceptions. Now its too much the fucking norm. People need to get the shit beat out of them more. Its about time we hang people again and start whipping people with bamboo sticks like they do in the orient.
Just every day schmucks going crazy and shooting up random establishments? Again, we appear to see that more nowadays, but I don't know how much of that is due to media exposure, or how much of that is due to an increase in these crimes.
Aside from that, why would massacres committed today be due to a generational issue, but massacres committed a few generations ago are not? Serial killers from the 1970's are somehow less crazy or less repulsive than those today?
I just don't get the blame being put on a generation when this type of thing has occurred multiple times in the United States over the past century. Mass murder of defenseless citizens in a public place is not a new fad being touted by MTV.
-
You trying to tell me that you wouldn't like to see some young men's ass exposed for some caning?
-
You trying to tell me that you wouldn't like to see some young men's ass exposed for some caning?
I've got all of the caning in my basement that a m-
Nothing. I have nothing in my basement.
-
Just every day schmucks going crazy and shooting up random establishments? Again, we appear to see that more nowadays, but I don't know how much of that is due to media exposure, or how much of that is due to an increase in these crimes.
Aside from that, why would massacres committed today be due to a generational issue, but massacres committed a few generations ago are not? Serial killers from the 1970's are somehow less crazy or less repulsive than those today?
I just don't get the blame being put on a generation when this type of thing has occurred multiple times in the United States over the past century. Mass murder of defenseless citizens in a public place is not a new fad being touted by MTV.
I agree the media sensationalizes it (like they do everything else), but its more random now and they are starting younger. And it just isn't limited to killers, it's just society as a whole. There are way too many kids and young adults in this country that haven't gotten their asses kicked enough. A lot of children of that hippie generation too. They are the same little league parents today that start fights at games now in their late 30's to mid 40's. These parents learned from the best to be shallow jerk offs who could do and say anything they want when not satisfied without consequence.
Seriously, caning with bamboo. Hangings. Firing squads.
-
I agree the media sensationalizes it (like they do everything else), but its more random now and they are starting younger. And it just isn't limited to killers, it's just society as a whole. There are way too many kids and young adults in this country that haven't gotten their asses kicked enough. A lot of children of that hippie generation too. They are the same little league parents today that start fights at games now in their late 30's to mid 40's. These parents learned from the best to be shallow jerk offs who could do and say anything they want when not satisfied without consequence.
Seriously, caning with bamboo. Hangings. Firing squads.
Can you name a generation that had an adequate amount of kids who got their asses kicked?
-
I agree the media sensationalizes it (like they do everything else), but its more random now and they are starting younger. And it just isn't limited to killers, it's just society as a whole. There are way too many kids and young adults in this country that haven't gotten their asses kicked enough. A lot of children of that hippie generation too. They are the same little league parents today that start fights at games now in their late 30's to mid 40's. These parents learned from the best to be shallow jerk offs who could do and say anything they want when not satisfied without consequence.
There's a bit of a leap there; I think there is a huge difference between someone starting fights and someone plotting to murder a room full of complete strangers.
One may be very well due to a generational issue, but the other is clearly related to a mental issue. No amount of ass beatings as a child is going to fix crazy.
-
There's a bit of a leap there; I think there is a huge difference between someone starting fights and someone plotting to murder a room full of complete strangers.
One may be very well due to a generational issue, but the other is clearly related to a mental issue. No amount of ass beatings as a child is going to fix crazy.
I know plenty of motherfuckers that qualify on a diagnosable crazy scale but they learned established limits by ass beatings.
-
I know plenty of motherfuckers that qualify on a diagnosable crazy scale but they learned established limits by ass beatings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR7el3SNEX4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR7el3SNEX4)
-
There's a bit of a leap there; I think there is a huge difference between someone starting fights and someone plotting to murder a room full of complete strangers.
One may be very well due to a generational issue, but the other is clearly related to a mental issue. No amount of ass beatings as a child is going to fix crazy.
It all goes back to people being desensitized to another's life or consequences of actions. I believe mental issues can be formed over time by dysfunctional behavoir.
THS - yes. Any generation before the current got more. You can stand in any generation the last 50-60 years and make that statement. If you deny we are more in a nanny state mentality now than ever, you are delusional. Did you not agree with the commencement speech from the English teacher in Ohio? he was dead on. And everything he said is true. All goes back to the general concept of the value of things and consequences of actions. That shit is getting worse every ten years and has been since around the mid 60's.
-
It all goes back to people being desensitized to another's life or consequences of actions. I believe mental issues can be formed over time by dysfunctional behavoir.
THS - yes. Any generation before the current got more. You can stand in any generation the last 50-60 years and make that statement. If you deny we are more in a nanny state mentality now than ever, you are delusional. Did you not agree with the commencement speech from the English teacher in Ohio? he was dead on. And everything he said is true. All goes back to the general concept of the value of things and consequences of actions. That shit is getting worse every ten years and has been since around the mid 60's.
Fewer people were murdered in the United States in 2010 than any other year from 1969 to 2009; it was considered to be one of the safest years over a 40 year period. Violent crime in general nearly quadrupled between 1960 and 1991, but has been on a downward trend since then. This is surprising given the fact that recent years have seen a recession, which tends to increase crime rates.
Sure, maybe this is just an odd "hiccup" in an otherwise longstanding trend in criminal growth over the years, but I find it hard to state that this is definitively a generational desensitization problem when overall crime rates have stagnated and even decreased over the past 20 years.
It's also hard for me to agree that there is a generational issue when the topic at hand is a relatively isolated event involving someone who is not representative of a generation, or even representative of crime in general. Again, I can't find specific statistics on massacres of this nature, but this is not the first time that a guy walked into a place and killed innocent citizens for no apparent reason.
Does it happen more now than it used to? Again, without statistics specifically on these types of massacres, I don't know that it does or doesn't happen more often now, but these type of people still represent the fringe. This isn't a trending fad amongst most people under 30 in our present-day society; it's always occurred due to nut cases that have always been present.
-
Fewer people were murdered in the United States in 2010 than any other year from 1969 to 2009; it was considered to be one of the safest years over a 40 year period. Violent crime in general nearly quadrupled between 1960 and 1991, but has been on a downward trend since then. This is surprising given the fact that recent years have seen a recession, which tends to increase crime rates.
Sure, maybe this is just an odd "hiccup" in an otherwise longstanding trend in criminal growth over the years, but I find it hard to state that this is definitively a generational desensitization problem when overall crime rates have stagnated and even decreased over the past 20 years.
It's also hard for me to agree that there is a generational issue when the topic at hand is a relatively isolated event involving someone who is not representative of a generation, or even representative of crime in general. Again, I can't find specific statistics on massacres of this nature, but this is not the first time that a guy walked into a place and killed innocent citizens for no apparent reason.
Does it happen more now than it used to? Again, without statistics specifically on these types of massacres, I don't know that it does or doesn't happen more often now, but these type of people still represent the fringe. This isn't a trending fad amongst most people under 30 in our present-day society; it's always occurred due to nut cases that have always been present.
A lot of the things I am talking about can't be seen in stats. Just general attitudes of people. Lack of respect. Nothing I can really prove other than what I know I am seeing in general. The fight at the little league game 2 weeks ago is a perfect example. When a bunch of 40 yr old adults act like that over kids it tells me two things: 1. Something went wrong in their upbringing (that behavior doesnt pop up overnight) 2. The kids there will witness this and end up acting much the same way when they get older because in their mind it was ok.
-
A lot of the things I am talking about can't be seen in stats. Just general attitudes of people. Lack of respect. Nothing I can really prove other than what I know I am seeing in general.
I understand that you had a separate sub-topic regarding general attitudes and not necessarily crime, but you also said that crimes like this were the norm now. If that were the case, then we should see a corresponding change in the crime stats; there isn't one.
Additionally, a lot of my issue is with pointing at this particular massacre and saying that it's the "norm," or even simply "more normal," for younger generations than it was for older generations. So Andrew Kehoe was just a crazy man in an otherwise normal society, but James Holmes is representative of widespread generational issues? Both are in the fringe, and neither can be considered representative of their peers' generation in my opinion.
-
I understand that you had a separate sub-topic regarding general attitudes and not necessarily crime, but you also said that crimes like this were the norm now. If that were the case, then we should see a corresponding change in the crime stats; there isn't one.
Additionally, a lot of my issue is with pointing at this particular massacre and saying that it's the "norm," or even simply "more normal," for younger generations than it was for older generations. So Andrew Kehoe was just a crazy man in an otherwise normal society, but James Holmes is representative of widespread generational issues? Both are in the fringe, and neither can be considered representative of their peers' generation in my opinion.
I think you may be on to something Vandy; what is different with the situations like this today is the wide-spectrum broadcasts across satellite and cable tv, radio, Twitter, FB, YooToob, IM, and smart-phone networks of incidents like this within seconds of it happening...instant, world-wide notoriety (or "Fame" in the perps mind). So, I would say that the media is perhaps an enabler of the notoriety. If only that same media could be harnessed to broadcast the consequences of the actions of the perp (a good, ole-fashioned hanging perhaps?).
-
I think you may be on to something Vandy; what is different with the situations like this today is the wide-spectrum broadcasts across satellite and cable tv, radio, Twitter, FB, YooToob, IM, and smart-phone networks of incidents like this within seconds of it happening...instant, world-wide notoriety (or "Fame" in the perps mind). So, I would say that the media is perhaps an enabler of the notoriety. If only that same media could be harnessed to broadcast the consequences of the actions of the perp (a good, ole-fashioned hanging perhaps?).
The media annoys me in many manners, but I wouldn't so much say that the notoriety aspect of it is at fault. Whether the media indirectly glorifies the suspect is not of my concern, so long as the legal system does its job and appropriate punishment is effected. Even if some of those who commit these crimes are doing it for the media's attention and the resulting "fame," so to speak, the personal decision to commit the act for whatever reason is what should be focused upon.
Technology probably plays another part in it, at least to some degree. The intarwebz allows us to find information on things we wouldn't normally know, like bomb-making. Or info on guns, including to illegal modifications or instructions on how to make them.
Granted, if someone is deranged enough to kill people, they could find a way to do it without our current level of technology, but it makes it easier. That could result in an increase in crimes, so long as there are people who would be deterred from doing it if executing the crime weren't as easy.
Not saying that information should be limited or that the system of tubes is to blame; just pointing out how it may have resulted in somewhat of an increase.
-
The media annoys me in many manners, but I wouldn't so much say that the notoriety aspect of it is at fault. Whether the media indirectly glorifies the suspect is not of my concern, so long as the legal system does its job and appropriate punishment is effected. Even if some of those who commit these crimes are doing it for the media's attention and the resulting "fame," so to speak, the personal decision to commit the act for whatever reason is what should be focused upon.
Technology probably plays another part in it, at least to some degree. The intarwebz allows us to find information on things we wouldn't normally know, like bomb-making. Or info on guns, including to illegal modifications or instructions on how to make them.
Granted, if someone is deranged enough to kill people, they could find a way to do it without our current level of technology, but it makes it easier. That could result in an increase in crimes, so long as there are people who would be deterred from doing it if executing the crime weren't as easy.
Not saying that information should be limited or that the system of tubes is to blame; just pointing out how it may have resulted in somewhat of an increase.
I don't entirely agree (nor disagree for that matter) with this only to say that I think technology and the ease of communicating play a greater degree these days in these acts of violence. Technology in the sense as you say that information is very readily available and communication in the sense that the act of violence makes the perp famous (or, better, infamous) almost immediately.
I'm not implying that the means and methods are to blame at all. The blame lies with the perp. As to the media they do what they've always done...there's just more of them and the "story" that they tell is disseminated faster.
-
I understand that you had a separate sub-topic regarding general attitudes and not necessarily crime, but you also said that crimes like this were the norm now. If that were the case, then we should see a corresponding change in the crime stats; there isn't one.
Additionally, a lot of my issue is with pointing at this particular massacre and saying that it's the "norm," or even simply "more normal," for younger generations than it was for older generations. So Andrew Kehoe was just a crazy man in an otherwise normal society, but James Holmes is representative of widespread generational issues? Both are in the fringe, and neither can be considered representative of their peers' generation in my opinion.
I think random nutty acts like this happen more. Where people just snap for no apparent reason other than being mentally unstable. I think you are also right though. I think it's happening more and I think the media amplifies it so the increase seems larger than it really is. It's both. As I said, they sensationalize EVERYTHING.
-
No doubt this guy is unstable in ways I don't think any of us will ever understand. At the same time, he didn't snap. Snapping is having that blow up with your boss or spouse, grabbing that gun and saying, "I'll teach that MF to mess with me..." Holmes plotted this. Stockpiled his weapons and ammo. Booby-trapped his apartment. Dressed up in black cape, gas mask and bullet-proof vest...and even timed the actual shooting. This was his 10 minutes of fame. This was something he knew full well would land his mug on every TV screen and at the forefront of every media outlet. And like so many others before him, he sacrificed innocent people to do it. So many other ways you can become infamous.
When I watched the video of him sitting in the courtroom, part of me looked at his expressions and thought, "Wow, this dude is off on some other planet". The other part of me saw a guy sitting there thinking what the hell have I done?
-
No doubt this guy is unstable in ways I don't think any of us will ever understand. At the same time, he didn't snap. Snapping is having that blow up with your boss or spouse, grabbing that gun and saying, "I'll teach that MF to mess with me..." Holmes plotted this. Stockpiled his weapons and ammo. Booby-trapped his apartment. Dressed up in black cape, gas mask and bullet-proof vest...and even timed the actual shooting. This was his 10 minutes of fame. This was something he knew full well would land his mug on every TV screen and at the forefront of every media outlet. And like so many others before him, he sacrificed innocent people to do it. So many other ways you can become infamous.
When I watched the video of him sitting in the courtroom, part of me looked at his expressions and thought, "Wow, this dude is off on some other planet". The other part of me saw a guy sitting there thinking what the hell have I done?
And thinking was it worth it for the moment of fame.
...or not thinking anything; he looked drugged to me.
-
I think random nutty acts like this happen more. Where people just snap for no apparent reason other than being mentally unstable. I think you are also right though. I think it's happening more and I think the media amplifies it so the increase seems larger than it really is. It's both. As I said, they sensationalize EVERYTHING.
Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, I don't really know because I can't find statistics on it. School shootings by young kids have been happening since 1853 in America, but Columbine caught people's attention as one of the first major shootings. After that, the media gave attention to every single one that happened. Meanwhile, no one has a clue about the shooting that happened at my school in 1995.
My mom had told me awhile back that, when she was a kid, there was always a random teacher or two that would smack high school girls' asses in the hallway. Probably more than that occurred, but we didn't start hearing about all of these sexual assaults on minors in schools until the media grew into the giant that it is now and jumped on those incidents to broadcast them nationwide.
Do events like the ones mentioned above, in addition to random nutjobs committing massacres, happen more often now than they used to? Again, without statistics, I can't say that they do or don't, but a lot of our perception as to whether they occur more often is likely skewed at least to some degree by the modern media and its technological omnipresence.
But, even if such incidents do occur more often, is that necessarily representative of a generational issue? I don't think so, at least not in regard to James Holmes' actions. I just don't think that a few more ass beatings would have changed the course of events. From all accounts, the guy was normal as a child, has never had any run-ins with the law, and was pretty accomplished academically. Are we suggesting that we beat well-behaved kids more often because it will help prevent psychotic breaks in the future?
I'm all for punishing children when they've done wrong in order to teach them how to do right, but I don't think that's what we have in the case of James Holmes, which is why I think that such events are not representative of a generational issue.
People getting into fights at softball games? Yeah, that speaks a lot to how a person was raised, and is probably a reoccurring event in their lives that goes to show how they've poorly developed over the years as a person. But for a previously normal guy to go apeshit on a theater full of defenseless people? That's mental.
-
Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, I don't really know because I can't find statistics on it. School shootings by young kids have been happening since 1853 in America, but Columbine caught people's attention as one of the first major shootings. After that, the media gave attention to every single one that happened. Meanwhile, no one has a clue about the shooting that happened at my school in 1995.
My mom had told me awhile back that, when she was a kid, there was always a random teacher or two that would smack high school girls' asses in the hallway. Probably more than that occurred, but we didn't start hearing about all of these sexual assaults on minors in schools until the media grew into the giant that it is now and jumped on those incidents to broadcast them nationwide.
Do events like the ones mentioned above, in addition to random nutjobs committing massacres, happen more often now than they used to? Again, without statistics, I can't say that they do or don't, but a lot of our perception as to whether they occur more often is likely skewed at least to some degree by the modern media and its technological omnipresence.
But, even if such incidents do occur more often, is that necessarily representative of a generational issue? I don't think so, at least not in regard to James Holmes' actions. I just don't think that a few more ass beatings would have changed the course of events. From all accounts, the guy was normal as a child, has never had any run-ins with the law, and was pretty accomplished academically. Are we suggesting that we beat well-behaved kids more often because it will help prevent psychotic breaks in the future?
I'm all for punishing children when they've done wrong in order to teach them how to do right, but I don't think that's what we have in the case of James Holmes, which is why I think that such events are not representative of a generational issue.
People getting into fights at softball games? Yeah, that speaks a lot to how a person was raised, and is probably a reoccurring event in their lives that goes to show how they've poorly developed over the years as a person. But for a previously normal guy to go apeshit on a theater full of defenseless people? That's mental.
Can't believe that no one saw any kind of warning sign or red flag from this nutjob before this happened. Maybe he is bipolar. Maybe people ignored them. Who knows. Just weird how it appears the guy went from 0 to mental in 60 seconds.
-
You can beat a crazy person to near death and it doesn't make them any less crazy. Crazy people are crazy. One day a wire gets crossed and they cause immediate harm or they methodically plan something out. I wouldn't even limit that to crazy people though. Everyone has a breaking point to where they snap and go off the deep end if pushed hard enough and long enough. Not taking up for the kid, by all means string him up. I think sometimes we get too caught up in trying to make sense of why people do the things they do when there is and will never be a clear cut answer to why.