4 ms·

> explicitly declined to publish the description of the suspects as released by the police so as to not "perpetuate stereotypes" That rationale is a bit ironic

by adolph 5y ago

> explicitly declined to publish the description of the suspects as released by the police so as to not "perpetuate stereotypes" That rationale is a bit ironic but there's a bit more to it: The Austin American-Statesman is not including the description as it is too vague at this time to be useful in identifying the shooter and such publication could be harmful in perpetuating stereotypes and potentially put innocent individuals at risk. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/06/12/what-we-know-mass-shooting-downtown-austin-saturday/7666729002/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/06/12/what-we-know...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xibalba 5y ago
The description was, for Austin, sufficiently specific to drastically narrow down the candidate pool of lookalikes. Keep in mind, this armed and dangerous mass shooter was still at large amongst the public. At what point do the scales tip in favor of safety and caution over "perpetuating stereotypes"?
- adolph 5y ago
  > this armed and dangerous mass shooter was still at large amongst the public And quickly picked up from his summer school class in Kileen. The phrase mass shooter seems to be a suitcase phrase, a lot of different meanings are packed into the same scary words. Additional information is needed to understand the risk profile. Was the mass shooter on a continuous rampage, or performed a horrific act from which they fled, or periodically performs the same act? It seems in this case there was a mass shooting from which the suspect(s) fled. What is the risk profile to address in such a case and what tradeoffs are socially acceptable and feasible to address the risk? A-AS made a call to not describe the suspect and also a call to perform some virtue signaling as justification. I think the former is reasonable given the risk profile but the latter is a poor reason outside the specific circumstances.

by adolph 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

xibalba 5y ago

The description was, for Austin, sufficiently specific to drastically narrow down the candidate pool of lookalikes. Keep in mind, this armed and dangerous mass shooter was still at large amongst the public. At what point do the scales tip in favor of safety and caution over "perpetuating stereotypes"?

adolph 5y ago
> this armed and dangerous mass shooter was still at large amongst the public And quickly picked up from his summer school class in Kileen. The phrase mass shooter seems to be a suitcase phrase, a lot of different meanings are packed into the same scary words. Additional information is needed to understand the risk profile. Was the mass shooter on a continuous rampage, or performed a horrific act from which they fled, or periodically performs the same act? It seems in this case there was a mass shooting from which the suspect(s) fled. What is the risk profile to address in such a case and what tradeoffs are socially acceptable and feasible to address the risk? A-AS made a call to not describe the suspect and also a call to perform some virtue signaling as justification. I think the former is reasonable given the risk profile but the latter is a poor reason outside the specific circumstances.