3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWe 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 agoAgain, 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.