Mass shooters, bombers, etc. We make them popular.

[We Never Know]

I put this in the general debate forum instead of general discussion forum because it seems like every thread turns into a debate more than a discussion. With that said.....

I sometimes wonder if making an unknown person popular has anything to do with shootings and such.
I mean they are in they news for years and and even after death they will go down in history as being known, remembered, leaving their mark, etc.
Many of us will live our whole life and then after death will be forgotten by most.

Do you think them getting notoriety plays a role in what they do?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We know this is true due to the mishandling of the Columbine massacre by the media and politicians both. It triggered dozens of copycat attacks and plans. Many disturbed young people of my generation and younger still view them as heroes striking back against their alleged tormenters, and refuse to consider the facts of the case which paint a totally different picture. They hate people such as Dave Cullen, who is considered one of the foremost experts of the massacre, and who destroyed the misperceptions that were common about it. They've become a myth and now Pandora's Box has been opened, thanks to the media. Many mass murderers have been inspired by them and appear to view it in quasi-religious terms. They view it as revolutionary to vent their hatred of society in such terrible ways. They view themselves as an elite.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Going out with a bang of glory? Yea, I think some do entertain that fantasy.

 

[Vee]

I put this in the general debate forum instead of general discussion forum because it seems like every thread turns into a debate more than a discussion. With that said.....

I sometimes wonder if making an unknown person popular has anything to do with shootings and such.
I mean they are in they news for years and and even after death they will go down in history as being known, remembered, leaving their mark, etc.
Many of us will live our whole life and then after death will be forgotten by most.

Do you think them getting notoriety plays a role in what they do?

Very likely. The chance of free advertisement for themselves and whatever cause they have will probably work like throwing gasoline in a fire. Wasn't there someone who said "there is no such thing as bad publicity"?

 

[sun rise]

Do you think them getting notoriety plays a role in what they do?

Sure. The problem is that their heinous acts are news and most of the media loves stories of atrocities because they put "eyeballs on ads".

Sometimes the aftermath might have the opposite effect. I think the repeated announcements of the arrest of someone who was part of January 6th insurrection attack on Congress might have the opposite impact.

Who wants to get involved with something that results in an arrest and in some cases being denied bail and facing years in the slammer.

 

[Suave]

We know this is true due to the mishandling of the Columbine massacre by the media and politicians both. It triggered dozens of copycat attacks and plans. Many disturbed young people of my generation and younger still view them as heroes striking back against their alleged tormenters, and refuse to consider the facts of the case which paint a totally different picture. They hate people such as Dave Cullen, who is considered one of the foremost experts of the massacre, and who destroyed the misperceptions that were common about it. They've become a myth and now Pandora's Box has been opened, thanks to the media. Many mass murderers have been inspired by them and appear to view it in quasi-religious terms. They view it as revolutionary to vent their hatred of society in such terrible ways. They view themselves as an elite.

I put this in the general debate forum instead of general discussion forum because it seems like every thread turns into a debate more than a discussion. With that said.....

I sometimes wonder if making an unknown person popular has anything to do with shootings and such.
I mean they are in they news for years and and even after death they will go down in history as being known, remembered, leaving their mark, etc.
Many of us will live our whole life and then after death will be forgotten by most.

Do you think them getting notoriety plays a role in what they do?

I like how CNN's Anderson Cooper will not publicize the names or photos of mass shooters. (Edited) **Please let us ban the names and photos of mass shooters from the internet in order to prevent them from becoming famous.**

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Whatever the various stereotypical motivations - whether they have some "manifesto" they are trying to get eyes on, or are doing it to lash out at what they believe are the ills of society, or feel they are being overlooked, underestimated or pushed down - no one doing anything to announce their personal name or aspects would, I feel, deter any of those with any of those (again, stereotypical, and not necessarily all-encompassing) motives. If they knew that even after all they did, no one would even know who they were or what they stood for? Well... then there goes the steam right our of their motive.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I like how CNN's Anderson Cooper will not publicize the names or photos of mass shooters.

Yes, they are trying to do better but you can find out all the information you please from other sources. It's easy to find and download their manifestos, if they have one, too. (Although these are usually plainly nonsense and usually not actually manifestos, but just them ranting and raging about society and their perceived treatment by it.)

 

[Suave]

Yes, they are trying to do better but you find out all the information you please from other sources. It's easy to find and download their manifestos, if they have one, too. (Although these are usually plainly nonsense and usually not actually manifestos, but just them ranting and raging about society and their perceived treatment by it.)

I did edit ny post while you responded to this post of mine I edited ny post with the additional sentence of us please banning the names and photos of mass shooters from the internet in order to prevent mass shooters from gaining fame.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I did edit ny post while you responded to my original post. I edited ny post with the additional sentence of us please banning the names and photos of mass shooters from the internet in order to prevent mass shooters from gaining fame.

That's a ridiculous idea, honestly. That would hamstring research and greater understanding of these things. I personally research these things for my own attempt at understanding them. It would require a ridiculous amount of censorship, of which I'm generally opposed.

 

[Suave]

That's a ridiculous idea, honestly. That would hamstring research and greater understanding of these things. I personally research these things for my own attempt at understanding them. It would require a ridiculous amount of censorship, of which I'm generally opposed.

Perhaps their personal traits with their names redacted could be revealed with a court approved freedom of information law suit.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Perhaps their personal traits with their names redacted could be revealed with a court approved freedom of information law suit.

I don't support censorship of the Internet. I prize the free flow of information. I dumped Google as my search engine for their political censorship of search results. I'm an adult and don't need the government acting as Big Brother.

 

[Mock Turtle]

For those who would aim to make others suffer, as surrogates perhaps for those they would like to target, and these often being innocent adults and/or children, then I doubt anything would affect their actions if they felt deeply enough about whatever issue it was. It seems to me that murder-suicide is the approach that many use - not wanting to live at that point. Not much anyone can do about these since they often present as no different from many others, and where the likelihood of them actually carrying out such horrific actions is pretty unlikely, given the number of such events. Many harbour grudges against others but rarely act on such.

 

[metis]

I put this in the general debate forum instead of general discussion forum because it seems like every thread turns into a debate more than a discussion. With that said.....

I sometimes wonder if making an unknown person popular has anything to do with shootings and such.
I mean they are in they news for years and and even after death they will go down in history as being known, remembered, leaving their mark, etc.
Many of us will live our whole life and then after death will be forgotten by most.

Do you think them getting notoriety plays a role in what they do?

I tend to agree, which is why the news media should maybe take steps voluntarily per the 1st Amendment of not giving names or showing pictures of murderers.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I put this in the general debate forum instead of general discussion forum because it seems like every thread turns into a debate more than a discussion. With that said.....

I sometimes wonder if making an unknown person popular has anything to do with shootings and such.
I mean they are in they news for years and and even after death they will go down in history as being known, remembered, leaving their mark, etc.
Many of us will live our whole life and then after death will be forgotten by most.

Do you think them getting notoriety plays a role in what they do?

Yep, it does.
Not all, by any means, but it's definitely a motivating factor for SOME.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sure. The problem is that their heinous acts are news and most of the media loves stories of atrocities because they put "eyeballs on ads".

Sometimes the aftermath might have the opposite effect. I think the repeated announcements of the arrest of someone who was part of January 6th insurrection attack on Congress might have the opposite impact.

Who wants to get involved with something that results in an arrest and in some cases being denied bail and facing years in the slammer.

And if one is dead, that person won't be able to gloat about what they did.

I think infamy has a similar appeal as fame unfortunately. We have a society that now romantically glorifies the bad guy or gal.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And if one is dead, that person won't be able to gloat about what they did.

I think infamy has a similar appeal as fame unfortunately. We have a society that now romantically glorifies the bad guy or gal.

We've had major movies parodying the glorification of killers, like Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers from 1994. This is nothing new.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We've had major movies parodying the glorification of killers, like Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers from 1994. This is nothing new.

Ned Kelly is treated like a national hero by some in Oz. Agree it's not new.

 

[We Never Know]

We've had major movies parodying the glorification of killers, like Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers from 1994. This is nothing new.

The "new" is social media which spreads faster than anything and has the shooters picture posted and shared all over the world. They are known and near famous in mere seconds.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The "new" is social media which spreads faster than anything and has the shooters picture posted and shared all over the world. They are known and near famous in mere seconds.

If you're in the US, blame the First Amendment. Our Internet is the Wild West, for good or bad. I prefer that over the controlled European version because I don't like people telling me what I can view.

Corporations are more powerful than the government here, honestly. Who knew we'd end up with a cyberpunk reality. Google has military contracts, for example. They're intertwined.