4 ms·

No, she refused to say his name in order to make it harder for him to be recognized or idolized for what he did; she has refused to give him any sort of platfor

No, she refused to say his name in order to make it harder for him to be recognized or idolized for what he did; she has refused to give him any sort of platform for his ideology. That's not the same as saying it didn't happen. She has very explicitly said that NZ's gun laws will change and that policy will be passed in order to help prevent this from happening again. We should know the names of the victims, not the perpetrator. It's a very well known phenomenon that when there is media frenzy over the identity and "secret life" of the attacker, violence rates go up. Many attackers do this for infamy.

HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
Fair point, but she certainly could have done it without making it a big deal. But again, political opportunism. I bet it was a great day for her, huge for her career. Bush probably felt the same jolt of joy when he found out about 9/11. Re-election for sure.
- phailhaus 8y ago
  If you don't point out that you're intentionally avoiding the name, then people are going to tend towards publishing and publicizing it anyways and fueling the attackers. She is a leader, and that's how you set an example. You can look at it cynically, but you have to admit it is an exceptional response. This is a good precedent to set and follow in the future.
  - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
    We don't avoid saying the name of ISIS, or Al-Qaeda, or the provisional IRA or any number of other terrorist groups. We don't avoid naming Stalin or Hitler just in case another one comes along. It's not cynical to realise will find a way to profit from this, it's realistic. The crocodile tears, the head scarf, the voldemorting, the raison d'etre for making laws the government wanted to make anyway. Don't you americans remember all of this from the 9/11 aftermath?
    - phailhaus 8y ago
      Again, we know that media obsession over a single attacker has actual, measurable effects on violence rates. If we have the option of not naming these attackers, we should take it. They are not leaders of nations, they are not part of groups, they are literally trying to be celebrities. We can talk about what they did and what they believed, but we don't have to name them and turn them into celebrities. We don't have to become publishers of their propaganda. > It's not cynical to realise will find a way to profit from this, it's realistic. It's not "realistic" if there's literally no universe in which a leader can prove to you that they actually care. Nobody can prove that they feel a certain way to somebody else. At least if they do the right thing, we can be happy. Invading Iraq wasn't the right thing, even at the time.

HumanDrivenDev 8y ago

Fair point, but she certainly could have done it without making it a big deal. But again, political opportunism. I bet it was a great day for her, huge for her career. Bush probably felt the same jolt of joy when he found out about 9/11. Re-election for sure.

phailhaus 8y ago
If you don't point out that you're intentionally avoiding the name, then people are going to tend towards publishing and publicizing it anyways and fueling the attackers. She is a leader, and that's how you set an example. You can look at it cynically, but you have to admit it is an exceptional response. This is a good precedent to set and follow in the future.
- HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
  We don't avoid saying the name of ISIS, or Al-Qaeda, or the provisional IRA or any number of other terrorist groups. We don't avoid naming Stalin or Hitler just in case another one comes along. It's not cynical to realise will find a way to profit from this, it's realistic. The crocodile tears, the head scarf, the voldemorting, the raison d'etre for making laws the government wanted to make anyway. Don't you americans remember all of this from the 9/11 aftermath?
  - phailhaus 8y ago
    Again, we know that media obsession over a single attacker has actual, measurable effects on violence rates. If we have the option of not naming these attackers, we should take it. They are not leaders of nations, they are not part of groups, they are literally trying to be celebrities. We can talk about what they did and what they believed, but we don't have to name them and turn them into celebrities. We don't have to become publishers of their propaganda. > It's not cynical to realise will find a way to profit from this, it's realistic. It's not "realistic" if there's literally no universe in which a leader can prove to you that they actually care. Nobody can prove that they feel a certain way to somebody else. At least if they do the right thing, we can be happy. Invading Iraq wasn't the right thing, even at the time.