ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Kentucky incidents , mass shootings , school shootings , shooting incidents

Reply
Old 13th August 2019, 08:32 PM   #1441
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,221
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Then it's time to accept that free speech must be curbed for the good of society.
Not buying it.

Of course, if it actually rises to specific threats or specific incitements to violence, yes, but we already do that. If it's the general, "Immigrants are taking over our culture" kind of b.s., that rhetoric is dumb, but making it illegal starts us down a path that ends in a very bad place.


I suppose I would like to see examples of what sort of rhetoric people think ought to be made illegal in order to curb mass shootings. Or if there is some sort of lesser action short of making it criminal, what would you have in mind.

It's all well and good to say we have to do something about thus and such a thing, but the devil is in the details. What is it that people think really ought to be done? in concrete terms? If we give government broad powers to restrict free speech when they think it is necessary, I'll take bets that they will find it necessary to restrict an awful lot of things. That's what powerful people do when given the authority to do it. That way lies madness, or more accurately, an authoritarian government or a dictatorship.


ETA: And, if possible, I would like to discuss this only in the context of what might be done that could reduce mass shootings. If that can't be done, it really ought to go in a different thread.
__________________
See you in September.....Maybe.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 13th August 2019 at 08:33 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 09:49 PM   #1442
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,062
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Not buying it.
As you've pointed out, we already curb free speech. There are some things that it is illegal to say. You can't incite violence. You can't induce panic. People in general, and America in particular, need to get rid of this whole idea that free speech is sacrosanct. Sites like 8chan should be shut down. YouTube should be banning white supremacist content.

It's never going to be completely solved, obviously, but expanding the illegality of certain kinds of speech is going to help a lot to counter stochastic terrorism. There's another thread crossover for you.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 03:09 AM   #1443
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,162
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Not buying it.

Of course, if it actually rises to specific threats or specific incitements to violence, yes, but we already do that. If it's the general, "Immigrants are taking over our culture" kind of b.s., that rhetoric is dumb, but making it illegal starts us down a path that ends in a very bad place.
Yep incitement is a BS crime and needs to be stricken from the legal books as being against the first amendment.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:07 AM   #1444
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,221
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
As you've pointed out, we already curb free speech. There are some things that it is illegal to say. You can't incite violence. You can't induce panic. People in general, and America in particular, need to get rid of this whole idea that free speech is sacrosanct. Sites like 8chan should be shut down. YouTube should be banning white supremacist content.

It's never going to be completely solved, obviously, but expanding the illegality of certain kinds of speech is going to help a lot to counter stochastic terrorism. There's another thread crossover for you.
I might be wrong, but I think YouTube already bans white supremacist content.

In my humble opinion, YouTube is a private entity and I would be extremely reluctant to impose any restriction on what they can post on their servers beyond what they already voluntarily restrict themselves. Once you get the government involved in deciding what is and isn't legal to say, a bunch of things become illegal to say.

I guess I would like to see someone cite a specific example of a specific video that YouTube considers acceptable, but that you, or anyone else, thinks the government should step in and make illegal.

And, to yank things back toward the thread topic, what would it accomplish? Last year, the ADL said there were 38 white supremacist killings. Those included 17 by Nick Cruz. They detailed his racist activity in the report, but when he decided to kill a bunch of people, he killed 17 white kids, in an act with no apparent political connection of any sort.

I think the far greater reason for the mass of spree killings in the US is loneliness.

ETA: Combined with easy access to guns.
__________________
See you in September.....Maybe.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 14th August 2019 at 04:14 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:21 AM   #1445
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,288
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I might be wrong, but I think YouTube already bans white supremacist content.

They do! Sometimes more than once:

Quote:
In June 2019, Vikernes's YouTube channel "Thulean Perspective" was removed from the platform. This coincided with an announcement from YouTube that it would be more aggressive in removing extremist content and hate speech which violated its terms of service. Vikernes said he did not know exactly why his channel was removed. Within hours, he had created a new channel and said he would continue to post content. However, Vikernes‘ new channel was removed soon after.
Varg Vikernes: Life after prison (Wikipedia)

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
They detailed his racist activity in the report, but when he decided to kill a bunch of people, he killed 17 white kids, in an act with no apparent political connection of any sort.

Haters gonna hate. They tend to hate 'N-word lovers' even more than N-words. Take a look at Breivik's victims (BBC News).

Quote:
I think the far greater reason for the mass of spree killings in the US is loneliness.

It's not a very good way to make friends, and I think they know that. If they have anything like that in mind it's probably a narcissistic wish for admirers, to impress the other haters in their online communities.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 14th August 2019 at 05:28 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 08:18 AM   #1446
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,367
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
As you've pointed out, we already curb free speech. There are some things that it is illegal to say. You can't incite violence. You can't induce panic. People in general, and America in particular, need to get rid of this whole idea that free speech is sacrosanct. Sites like 8chan should be shut down. YouTube should be banning white supremacist content.

It's never going to be completely solved, obviously, but expanding the illegality of certain kinds of speech is going to help a lot to counter stochastic terrorism. There's another thread crossover for you.
We're missing a critical requirement for that not to go terribly, terribly wrong.

Given the political immaturity of America overall, I see a system that will go to extraordinary lengths to put a stop to the bigotry and intolerance against protestant evangelical Christianity. Gun owners, also gun owners. Oh, and "patriots" because that one always just sells itself (hump a flag or two).

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 14th August 2019 at 08:19 AM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2019, 02:18 AM   #1447
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,675
Interesting editorial in The Lancet.
Quote:
In just over a week, a spate of mass shootings devastated the USA: in Gilroy, CA, on July 28, 2019, three people were killed and 12 injured at a festival; in El Paso, TX, on Aug 3, 22 were killed and 24 injured at a shopping centre; and in downtown Dayton, OH, on Aug 4, another nine were killed and 27 were injured. It has left the country aghast, overwhelmed, and looking for answers to whether and how these killings can be prevented. Over 250 separate mass shootings have occurred in 2019. Although rare in the scope of gun violence, the seemingly unpredictable nature of these tragic events has begun to chisel away at the public's reluctance toward gun reform. The refrain of anguished citizens to an inert government has become: “Do something!” But a resolution to stop mass shootings and the catastrophic cycle of gun violence cannot occur without a deep reckoning with underlying cultural forces.

The epicentre of nearly every mass shooting in the USA is a man. In the forensic unpacking, the shared characteristics of shooters—misogyny, alienation, and hate—emerge. Angry and socially disengaged, he finds solace in racist or extremist ideologies online. Rejected by females, he identifies as an involuntary celibate or “incel”, he demeans women and blames minorities, threatening violence. At some unknown point of personal crisis, he takes aim at infamy by destroying as many lives as he can in a moment. The staggering lopsidedness of male perpetrators in mass shootings behooves investigating the social mechanisms and influences that may interact with maladaptive beliefs, reinforce hegemonic masculinity, or make seductive the annihilation of oneself and others.

As the frequency of mass shootings has escalated and held stable, in efforts to understand the motivations behind them, the lay public and politicians have perhaps too quickly labelled mental illness as a catch-all precipitant. In August, 2019, the National Council for Behavioral Health released a report, “Mass violence in America: causes, impacts, and solutions”, examining the relationship between mental illness and mass shootings. As a framework, the report suggests that a community-wide problem requires community-wide engagement and involvement to find points for intervention before violence occurs. The report concludes that although psychological and social functioning aspects might figure modestly in the constellation of factors that spur mass violence, to suggest that a diagnosable psychiatric illness is a “necessary or sufficient” risk factor is a great and damaging oversimplification, increasing stigma, promoting less effective policy strategies targeting a subset of individuals than more inclusive gun-control laws, and diverting attention from other mediating factors.

In the present sociopolitical context where the nation has more seriously begun to consider the effects of racism and sexism, shifting the dialogue away from the systemic issues that give rise to mass shootings is by design. Gun-related deaths in the USA (nearly 40 000 in 2017) carry a massive economic toll (US$229 billion, including more than $9 billion for medical and emergency care) and mass shootings contribute disproportionately to financial and social burdens. Despite these costs, Republicans and the National Rifle Association (NRA) continue to propound unfettered access to firearms as an expression of liberty, stymieing legislation prohibiting high-capacity firearms, challenging universal background checks, and opposing extreme protection orders temporarily removing firearms from those deemed at risk. The far right and the Trump administration have fomented and normalised white nationalist sentiment and entitlement with anti-immigrant rhetoric, which is amplified by conservative media and then consumed by the disenfranchised. The First Amendment (protecting free speech) and the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) have become weaponised and mass shootings are one of the byproducts.

The NRA has exhorted that doctors in favour of gun control should “stay in their lane”, prompting medical and public health professionals who contend with its aftermath to assert that gun violence cannot be the exclusive domain of politics. On Aug 7, 2019, the Annals of Internal Medicine published a call to action to underscore that injuries and deaths by firearms, including mass shootings, must be confronted with a public health approach, to “address culture, firearm safety, and reasonable regulation”. The corollary of this charge is to acknowledge that despite practical recommendations to increase research, to improve screening and interventions for intimate partner violence and suicide, and to promote sensible access to firearms, the culture of American gun violence is bound to a hateful and dangerous undergirding of discrimination. Doing something about mass shootings will take a critical mass intent on change.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:12 PM   #1448
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,288
CNN: Police may have thwarted 3 shootings in 5 days

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.