Jump to content

SnapSlav

Recommended Posts

Post all relevant news and thoughts on this topic here.

It's barely a few hours since it happened, and already that same, tired conveyor belt of pointless moral posturing can be seen all over the place. "Thoughts and prayers" tweets mixed with "senseless violence" and condemnations of what happened (Mitt Romney included the whole trifecta in a single tweet!) and of course lamentations that the NRA is to blame, Republicans have blood on their hands, the Republicans are NRA puppets, etc etc. Naturally the focus is that this is a shooting, and that guns are the problem.

I had a thought just now when I was noting how this happens every time such a massacre takes place. The usual line goes something line this: "School shooting. Get rid of guns, no more school shootings!"

My thought was more like this: "School shooting. Get rid of public schools, no more school shootings!"

True, that thought is probably just as knee-jerk reactionary as everything else, and I probably felt that way simply because I was already firmly-opposed to public schooling, and I'm probably no more considerate to the pain and suffering that many people in Florida are going through as a result of this event. But I can't help but wonder if that might actually help prevent these such "tragedies" from occurring... It certainly doesn't exterminate the possibility of depraved souls shooting up private schools, or any congregation of crowds of people, but it might do many things that may lead to fewer of these events taking place. Whether from the public education system's erasure resulting in somewhat-more-balanced individuals, to there just being fewer kids congregated at these institutions, I can't help but feel that THIS is just as preferable of a "solution", and nobody seems to even fathom it a possibility...

Last I've read, the shooter is in custody, and was an expelled student. I'm not sure how certain these facts are, but that's the latest that I'm aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all whom...

Never understood until the picture crystallised years ago, these phenomenons are not just badly communicated but what's worse they're being pushed as some form of a norm. Wait. No. That's only the surface...

(Though, it's a useful tool for finding out a great deal about someone if when they hear I don't own/watch tv, they find it difficult to believe. That's a gentle warning sign for me.)

I mean, this is one of the many discreet & specific reason why I think being aware and discriminatory when choosing media exposure is of critical importance.

Today, I happened to be in the company of some acquaintances while having lunch at their place and noticed that, unsurprisingly, (those who prefer eating with the TV) the local mainstream news channel went into great details on the tragedy.

Sure, there was no truth just drama, pc explaining and plenty of pictures of the perpetrator.

If having fewer of these tragedies was preferable, why devote detailed and dramatic segments to it, especially in prime time?

If it's commonly known that perpetrators thirst for attention, why give them exactly that?

If it's understood that exposures of such deeds encourage otherwise latent tendencies...

Is there any other conclusion than that the biggest evils are those who mindlessly tune in to watch the latest news while casually splicing a meatball in half, reaching for the glass... but hesitation, wouldn't want to gulp while the news anchor narrates the perpetrators fiecebook messages running up to the day of... sigh.

No...actually, f&ck 'sigh' !

If people wanted, they could choose to NOT be complicit. (caveats, exceptions... bla-bla)

Have real conversations instead, 'DECOMPRESS'!

(but be mindful)

 

 

Edited by barn
{1} decompression instead sighs, {2} bold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it telling how you can hear all about a particular "event" on certain news outlets, and dead silence on others. I remember walking past 2 different television sets sometime in the last year, and one channel was Maddow droning on and on about "the latest revelations about the Russia hack" and the other channel was Hannity discussing something completely different. It's funny to me how the opposite sides inhabit completely different universes.

I heard about this yesterday because some people were murmuring about it at the office. Since I don't watch TV anymore, if other people weren't relaying what they took from listening to their TVs, I might have gone the whole day without even knowing that it happened. (What a world we could live in, if every aspiring sociopath knew that nobody would know what atrocities they could commit tomorrow, because nobody pays any attention to attention-whoring news outlets?) I immediately went to my preferred sources of information about the world: the "skeptosphere", trademark, and nobody had posted a single thing. Nothing from Stef. Nothing from Crowder. Nothing from Sargon. Etc etc. Naturally, my thoughts for WHY they had nothing was "they're taking their time to gather all the relevant, true facts (sad that we have to differentiate these from anything else), before they post anything incorrect." I could of course be wrong, and it could simply have been that they were slow on the uptake. But seeing as Stef ALWAYS comments on these events... later, and with all due caution and tact... I doubt it.

I forget what the video was about, but I did watch something yesterday or the day before about an older "tragedy" in which the poster censored any and all mention of the perpetrator, and they even commented that they were deliberately avoiding naming or showcasing the person, because they didn't want them to get any attention. If but that were the norm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What caused this issue?  A fatherless mentally ill boy on psyche meds exposed to decades of violence in movies and video games.  Where are the fathers?  Hollywood and the government pushed many of them out of the home.  And the answer the media (who helped promote these mass murders) is that we should all give up our guns because the FBI was too incompetent to locate this kid and investigate him even though they have had hundreds of agents too busy chasing after the Russian investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet again, after some news-worthy thing happens, Matt Christiansen takes a crack at it, and explains a really great analysis of the popular response, good or bad related ideas, all while still maintaining some level of delightful entertainment. Check it out below:

I didn't know that the media (again, don't watch TV anymore) had picked these 2 kids as their gun control darlings. Strikes me as really sick. Then as Matt points out, they completely avoid (deliberate lying by omission) the facts that Little Marco Rubio is open to policies to try to curb gun violence, in favor of painting him as some NRA-funded blood-on-his-hands evil Republican. When I think back to the things I believed when I was in high school, I shudder to think that those ideas could have been allowed to shape the world for generations to come. I'm glad I couldn't vote yet, cause my decisions would've been perilous. But for some reason these kids and their ambiguous "goals" are great ideas? Mleh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/25/2018 at 6:13 AM, Jsbrads said:

Looks like no one mentioned an armed sheriff deputy hid the entire time.

Well it's more a matter of hardly anybody commenting on the topic than it was nobody mentioning that fact. Cause that came out well after most of these were stated. But yeah, it was just absurd. It reminds me of the stand-down orders given to university police during the Antifa riots while a non-leftist was trying to speak to an audience. Was the deputy given direct stand-down orders, or was he just that spineless? Who can say.

Personally, I find that running-for-office level of obfuscation and evasiveness on the part of "Sheriff" Scott Israel to be the FAR more infuriating detail. I know many centrist or litertarian/conservative leaning minds like to say that more conservative-minded and protective people get into armed forces and law enforcement, and here's some bleeding heart politician spouting out phrases so absurd that even JAKE TAPPER has to call him on how nonsensical his "answers" are to his questioning. Just insane.

Watched the video, and I have to say, I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that Whole Language is at the root of this problem. That's not to say that I think it should stay. But I think there's more of a problem going on with the public schools than the humiliation children are forced to endure for being put on the spot when they don't know something because they were taught so poorly. Maybe I'm only drawing from biased interpretations of "olden times" teaching, but I believe there was QUITE the spectacle of placing young children in front of the classroom, on a stool, meant to sit there for the rest of class, wearing a cone on there head with the word "dunce" on it if they got too many questions wrong. That's an OLD tradition of humiliation, so the current Progressive Education equivalent doesn't strike me as being particularly new or noteworthy.

But the shift from seeing boys as boys to seeing boys as defective and in need of medicating for "acting out", the shift from structured teaching to "everybody matters" teaching, the shift to a heavy emphasis on unearned self-esteem, and the increasing government monopolization of education, are combined the major contributing factors to these school shooting phenomenons.

That being said, the video only served to reinforce my belief that these schools have GOT to go.

Appreciate the link!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.