That’s just a waste of taxpayers money, of course “what dumb kids say” is pretty much what the media reports on these days. Hell what I read on twitter is on CNN, ABC and PBS two days later. So of course RS and the media is salavating over the dollars it’s going to generate…
Meanwhile families who have to deal with painful rehab and death also have to struggle to find the funds to do so.
Are suggesting that he not be tried? Just, what, shot?
Actually, I think I might buy this Rolling Stone copy, probably the first new RS I’ve bought in 20 years. It sounds like an interesting read.
A trial?
It’s an interesting read, and it’s better than I thought it would be.
Wow. There’s absolutely nothing henious about a fucking rag cashing in on this creep, except he looked pretty and at least 16,000 fucking twitter followers are going immortalize that stupid cover on their bedroom wall.
I’m not saying we should forget the names for our benefit. Nor am I saying we shouldn’t use their names based on some philosophical principle.
All I’m saying, is that maybe, labeling these guys with generic monikers might give future shooters/bombers less of an impetus to do such vile things. Maybe, instead of mowing down a school full of children, they’ll just off themselves instead.
Who knows? It couldn’t hurt. I don’t feel remembering these guys name is so important that we have to do so at the expense of innocent victims.
What does this have to do with the expense of a trial? And have you read the article by any chance?
Tried & hung by an article in a rag like The New York Post. Yeah, thats the ‘right’ use of what few tax dollars America is allowed to collect. :rolleyes:
So you’re proposing it because ‘think of the children?’ That’s not better.
I doubt it’d have any effect on the handful of people who do things like this for no reason (which probably doesn’t include terrorists anyway), and yes, it does hurt us.
Rolling Stone, a news magazine? come on, man.
So we would use “John Doe” and “Richard Roe” to refer to H. H. Holmes, Hitler, Himmler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Attila, even the legendary Cain?
What utter, brain dead nonsense.
Are you keeping up with this thread or are you still under the impression that Rolling Stone just reviews records?
Have you been reading this thread at all? Rolling Stone has been publishing investigative pieces like this for decades. It’s not new and it’s not even newsworthy.
We’re not talking about historical figures here, we’re talking about some stupid kid. And you’ve completely missed my point.
Yes, because any time we think of the children it’s just righteous bull shit right?
You doubt, but you don’t know. And how exactly does it “hurt” us?
Also, I don’t think I’ve made this clear. For news stories to be completely devoid of names would be asinine. I hope that’s not the impression I gave you earlier. All I’m saying is the proliferation of such names and imagery is attractive to the psychos out there who want their 15 minutes of fame.
If they get the impression that they’re just going to be referred to as psycho 123, and his name will be forgoten a week from now. Well, that whole “Going out in a blaze of glory” thing just became a little less attractive.
No. But ‘think of the children’ is used to justify all manner of ridiculous ideas, and unfortunately this is one of them.
It robs us of information and context and interferes with our ability to be informed.
I agree everybody should be judicious in covering this kind of stuff, but what kind of limit are you proposing, then? How would that actually work?
It won’t, though, since people do tend to remember the names of the guy who killed their friend/family member/etc.
A little, maybe. But I’ve always figured that by the time you get to this psychological stage, you’d be satisfied with the idea that you killed a bunch of people and affected a bunch of lives whether your name gets attached to it or not.
All historical monsters were once stupid kids. And anyone who does something noteworthy will be a historical figure sooner than later.
When it comes to purely symbolic limitations on serious public discourse, yes.
… They will jockey for their favorite numbers …
This silly charade won’t make that happen, not should it.
Meh, I don’t know where the line should be drawn, but a good place to start is by NOT putting their mug on the cover of a magazine with their best come hither look.
I don’t know. I’m trying to think of a shooting spree incident pre Colubine. I can’t think of any. The best I could come up with was that tower shooting at the University of Texas.
It’s probably confirmation bias, but it seems like ever since that incident, the shooting sprees have increased ten fold.
What about the cover of the New York Times? (In general I think very little of ‘I know it when I see it,’ which is pretty much what this is.)