As analogies go, that was a really easy one to understand. As I’m charitable I will not assume you’re a moron, and thus presume you understood me perfectly and simply have no way to contest my points.
I’m pretty sure we’ve reached a consensus that you haven’t found scientists that support what you’re saying. So no, you have to defend your own points. Welcome to Great Debates!
Whoever told you that the way to get out of a hole was to keep digging even deeper did you a disservice.
Scientists are proposing that the government ineffectually try to censor the names of mass shooters by prohibiting a few broadcast networks from uttering the names, while not doing anything about the non-broadcast networks, social media, the rest of the Internet, broadcast media in other countries, print media, and satellite radio?
Can you point out which scientists are proposing that? A quote from a scientific paper will do.
I dont debate with people who use personal insults.
Reading comprehension, good sir. I think you’re NOT a moron. I think you just prefer to not address my analogy directly.
Given previous moderator instructions, and likely without it, this is inappropriate for this forum. This is a warning for personal insults.
[/moderating]
I still think he just prefers to not address my analogy directly.
I have read your posts. You have not explained that 2000 is just an easy to remember cut off date. In fact, you have used 2000 as THE date when the 24/7 news cycle started and mass shootings started to increase. The numbers say differently.
From your original OP:
Then, from post #36:
Then, from post 117:
Then, from post 124:
From post 136:
My point still stands. Mass shootings were an issue before 2000 and the 24/7 news cycle, and they have increased greatly since 2012…which just happens to be about the time that Facebook started to explode. IMO, putting a gag order on broadcast media won’t do squat.
Sure, if you wanna say 2012 fine.
Really? If the FCC explained to the broadcast media and that media made a big deal of doing it “voluntarily for the good of the nation”, you dont think FB would fall in line? FB has been working hard to get rid of fake news, etc. And just how would a FB poster know that names if the Police, FBI and broadcast media didnt announce them? \
DrDeth, you’ve said that the reason that mass shootings haven’t been an issue in the developed world*, is because the rest of the world does not have the same 24/7/365 coverage, or the same social media presence, as the United States. May I ask how you came to that conclusion, and by what metrics you are measuring?
*comparing apples to apples as much as one can
The media is multinational and the government of the United States is not capable of controlling it to the extent that your plan requires, even if the First Amendment was totally discarded. As far as them all getting together and volunteering to jump on this bandwagon is concerned, there is only one word that pops into my head…pipedream.
You aren’t even responding to me. Where do the scientists say that restricting broadcast news will have an effect? Is being known as the killer of 12 people you hate going to be less appealing if your name isn’t associated? Is copying someone else’s killing of 12 people you hate going to be less appealing than knowing the name of the person who did it?
The scientists ask for voluntary restrictions. How long is that going to last when the name is all over Twitter and sites the bigots visit?
None of the articles I looked at (a lot are no longer available) are anecdotal. It is hard to tell what a killer would do if the name of another killer were not known. It’s guessing, not science.
Because a killer would post his intentions before? Which they’d be sure to do if FB started censoring news. FB blocking the info would be impossible - they don’t have the name remember, and there are plenty of ways to get the name into hate groups in non-obvious ways.
You’d wind up blocking the information from getting to people without any chance of copying and not blocking it to those who would copy.
Also, how do you propose to keep friends and neighbors of the killer from speaking?
So you’re saying that the USA could ban AR-15 rifles, and any handguns that aren’t 6-shot revolvers, and it would be 100% perfectly legal under the 2nd Amendment?
I’d be okay with that.
If we say 2012 was the time when the frequency of mass shootings dramatically increased (which is true), then that sorta ruins your narrative of the 24/7 news cycle of the broadcast media being responsible for the increase. CNN started in 1980, while both MSNBC and Fox News started in 1996.
Which would mean the FBI would visit him before he started shooting. And this has occured.
And FB already censors news. Has for a while. They delete fake news, Recommendations
of Violence, hate speech, organizing or suggesting terrorism, mocking victims, promoting drug use, etc.
You should know that.
Of course, which is why we read the names of rape victims in the news…oh, wait… we dont.
But sure, ignore this simple method of saving thousands of lives. Get back to gun grabbing, that has worked so well, hasnt it? :rolleyes:
and you know, even if we try this, that wont stop your useless gun grabbing.
Read Heller someday.
AR15 sales can & have been banned, with no effect whatsoever.
And please dont try to hijack this thread.
Which narrative are you pushing?
The one where the government does the censoring, or the one where all the media gets together and volunteers to do the censoring?
This has been covered already. The FBI is not going to be able to swoop down on a threat made one day before the action. Or even to be able to find all the threats, most of which would be fake.
You cut this part
I said that if FB blocked the news it could be gotten around by sending the information in other ways.
And FB would have to block legitimate news sources, but even if they did it wouldn’t help.
I doubt is has occurred with anybody who sent his post from his phone immediately before they started shooting. Which would certainly happen if that was the only way to get your name and story out.
I don’t get the impression that you average hate group relies on Facebook.
Keep in mind, we’re talking about a world where this plan has been put into practice, and all major television news networks, both Facebook and Twitter, and exactly zero right wing radio stations have voluntarily chosen to avoid deliberately saying a shooter’s name, and they’ve also instituted broad AI censorship which quashes all mentions of shooters names or any other human’s names anywhere on their services.
In this world, the hate groups are going to be well aware that this is going on, and will work around it. Not that it’ll be hard - their own forums and information networks will be untouched by these voluntary bans. And of course none of them will give a flying crap about it anyway, because being known as “The Strickland Shooter, who killed and wounded seventy people in ten minutes!” is way cooler than being known as “Fred”. Nobody knows Superman’s name and he’s still famous, so why should Shooterman mind a similar notoriety?