What did you do with my RWHN?

[Doktor Howl]

10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.

CALLED IT.

What?  That I posted a thread with the sole intent of generating a lot of conversation and posts?  Isn't that kind of the point of these internet forums?

Why yes, the purpose of a conversation is to make the most possible posts in a 2 hour period.

Then we all take a break and eat the menu.

The top poster in this thread has made 63 posts accounting for over 1/3 rd of all the posts.
The second-most poster has made 47 posts accounting for 27% of all the posts.


I'm number 2.  Any guesses as to who is #1?

Getting horny again.

[Doktor Howl]

Any guesses who give a flying fuck?

The person griping about the thread maybe?

Who's that?  I made fun of you.  I didn't gripe about the thread.  You have me confused with another poster.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

LOL, yeah, cos I said so and I live closer to Ireland than you so that makes me an authority 

Actually not bullshitting

shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"

Examples?

Can't give you an exact citation of the page number because the book belongs to my dad.

This is awesome.  I wish I'd thought of handing RWHN back the same sort of citations he hands to others.

Unfortunately I WISH I could give him an accurate citation.

[Doktor Howl]

LOL, yeah, cos I said so and I live closer to Ireland than you so that makes me an authority 

Actually not bullshitting

shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"

Examples?

Can't give you an exact citation of the page number because the book belongs to my dad.

This is awesome.  I wish I'd thought of handing RWHN back the same sort of citations he hands to others.

Unfortunately I WISH I could give him an accurate citation.

Took me about 2 minutes to google.

[AFK]

10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.

CALLED IT.

What?  That I posted a thread with the sole intent of generating a lot of conversation and posts?  Isn't that kind of the point of these internet forums?

Why yes, the purpose of a conversation is to make the most possible posts in a 2 hour period.

Then we all take a break and eat the menu.

You fulfilled this purpose by making over 1/3 rd of those posts.


Great job sir!

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

LOL, yeah, cos I said so and I live closer to Ireland than you so that makes me an authority 

Actually not bullshitting

shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"

Examples?

Can't give you an exact citation of the page number because the book belongs to my dad.

This is awesome.  I wish I'd thought of handing RWHN back the same sort of citations he hands to others.

Unfortunately I WISH I could give him an accurate citation.

Took me about 2 minutes to google.

i'm eating lunch.

[Doktor Howl]

10 pages in just a little over two hours, not bad.

CALLED IT.

What?  That I posted a thread with the sole intent of generating a lot of conversation and posts?  Isn't that kind of the point of these internet forums?

Why yes, the purpose of a conversation is to make the most possible posts in a 2 hour period.

Then we all take a break and eat the menu.

And the griping part is where?  Please to highlight for those of us that are slow.

[P3nT4gR4m]

LOL, yeah, cos I said so and I live closer to Ireland than you so that makes me an authority 

Actually not bullshitting

shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"

Examples?

Can't give you an exact citation of the page number because the book belongs to my dad.

This is awesome.  I wish I'd thought of handing RWHN back the same sort of citations he hands to others.

Unfortunately I WISH I could give him an accurate citation.

Why? He wouldn't understand it anyway.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

LOL, yeah, cos I said so and I live closer to Ireland than you so that makes me an authority 

Actually not bullshitting

shouldnt have said "supporters" should have said "sympathisers"

Examples?

Can't give you an exact citation of the page number because the book belongs to my dad.

This is awesome.  I wish I'd thought of handing RWHN back the same sort of citations he hands to others.

Unfortunately I WISH I could give him an accurate citation.

Why? He wouldn't understand it anyway.

Because I don't actually want to behave like the jackass.

[Cramulus]

So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?

I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.

I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.

As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?

I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.

I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.

As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?

I think we need to understand the darker side of people and wonder where we as institutions, nations, and individuals have fucked up.

[Lord Cataplanga]

Well here's what both sides of the debate can agree on: "The media should stop publicizing the killer's name! It makes killers think they can be famous, getting their fifteen minutes of fame." Tip: If you find yourself in total agreement with people you wanted to murder in the last election, you're wrong.

It's interesting that we think spree killers are motivated by fame, an idea so entrenched it is immune to critical examination, we assume that that must be what drives people, crazy people doubly so. That would be an example of projection. Or perception. Whatever. This guy left no manifesto and obliterated his computer on his way out. Fame? Sounds like his problem was he felt overscrutinized, but I'm no shrink. Unless he thought he was playing Candyland he did it out of rage. You know what's even more interesting? That you don't think "rage" is a satisfying explanation, but "fame" is.

An interesting article about a different massacre, but very relevant to this thread:

http://partialobjects.com/2012/12/february-13-2013-the-school-shooting-pivot-date/

[Junkenstein]

What's this? A RWHN thread without that picture?

I'll fix that for you all right now.



I'm Outraged. My anger at that picture is indescribable.

Despite having seen it many times before, it normalises RWHN and makes him look like a rock star. What kind of messages does this send to kids? Get fisted and become a rock star?

Disgusting.

[AFK]

So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?

I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.

I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.

As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?

I'm all about figuring out what makes these people tick if it can help prevent future incidents.  And I think the line between that and creating celebrity or cult-of-personality is fine, but, in most cases you know it when you see it.  To me, the way Rolling Stone is handling this crosses that line, when this is still VERY fresh for those who went through it, many in the infancy of their recovery that will go on for years, if it ever ends.  I think it's just rather incentive, and in my opinion, minimizes and cheapens the horror and pain that piece of shit created.

[P3nT4gR4m]

So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?

I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.

I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.

As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?

What we're discussing is censorship. My answer is no.