4 ms·

My guess is that this comment was flagged by an automated system and only once someone reviewed it did they say "nah, this is nothing." > it means the thought

My guess is that this comment was flagged by an automated system and only once someone reviewed it did they say "nah, this is nothing." > it means the thought crossed your mind...might start to look like something if there are a lot of them This doesn't make any sense. Thinking about worst case scenarios is normal. The person who is going to rob you is the one person who is definitely not going to tell you in advance that you're going to be robbed.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mulmen 5y ago
As one counter example the Christchurch murderer posted a manifesto in advance of his attack then livestreamed it, including before the first murder.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  It's one of those scale-dependent things. As a rule, history's greatest atrocities didn't originate in secret. From the Communist Manifesto to Mein Kampf to the PNAC charter, the architects were not shy about telling anyone who would listen exactly what they thought should happen or what they planned to do. It's fair to place the Christchurch shooter in that category. At the other end of the spectrum, it seems that people who go online and rant about how someone should shoot the President or cut a judge's brake lines or whatever are the least likely to follow through. They aren't exactly the movers and shakers of civilization, more likely just thoughtless kids or random loudmouths. Wasting law enforcement time on nonspecific threats is the sort of thing a government that has too much power tends to do.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    Wasn't the Christchurch shooter known for ranting online in advance of his murders? Did he not say exactly what he was going to do, then do it? I don't see what scale has to do with it. I also don't see how an absolute statement like "The person who is going to rob you is the one person who is definitely not going to tell you in advance that you're going to be robbed." can be believed. It only takes one counter example. This is a thread about anticipating crimes based on online commentary, something that could absolutely have flagged the Christchurch massacre.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      Did he not say exactly what he was going to do, then do it? Yes. The point being, he wrote a manifesto, not a vaguely-ominous sounding tweet.
      - mulmen 5y ago
        Well he did both as far as I know. He had a history of posting racist messages including threats of violence. Ultimately he posted a manifesto and then took action on his words. The video itself was a warning because it started before the shooting. A timely enough warning based on that alone could have prevented this tragedy.
        markdown 5y ago
        > He had a history of posting racist messages including threats of violence. Ultimately he posted a manifesto and then took action on his words. The video itself was a warning because it started before the shooting. Seems you know this background and motivation well. Since it perfectly fits the definition of terrorism, why won't you call him a terrorist? Is it because he isn't brown?
- markdown 5y ago
  > Christchurch murderer Because only brown people are terrorists, amirite?
  - mulmen 5y ago
    > Because only brown people are terrorists, amirite? I chose "murderer" as a stronger word than "shooter". I didn't say anything about "brown people". I'm not sorry and you are out of line.
    - markdown 5y ago
      You say that like it's better. Shooter? A guy who kills his wife or robs and kills someone is a murderer. What happened in Christchurch was terrorism. Call it what it is. > I didn't say anything about "brown people". I did. Because you're trying to whitewash a terrorist attack, calling it murder. Whether or not you accept that that's where your unconscious bias took you, you're echoing the narratives around who and what a terrorist is supposed to be.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mulmen 5y ago

As one counter example the Christchurch murderer posted a manifesto in advance of his attack then livestreamed it, including before the first murder.

CamperBob2 5y ago
It's one of those scale-dependent things. As a rule, history's greatest atrocities didn't originate in secret. From the Communist Manifesto to Mein Kampf to the PNAC charter, the architects were not shy about telling anyone who would listen exactly what they thought should happen or what they planned to do. It's fair to place the Christchurch shooter in that category. At the other end of the spectrum, it seems that people who go online and rant about how someone should shoot the President or cut a judge's brake lines or whatever are the least likely to follow through. They aren't exactly the movers and shakers of civilization, more likely just thoughtless kids or random loudmouths. Wasting law enforcement time on nonspecific threats is the sort of thing a government that has too much power tends to do.
- mulmen 5y ago
  Wasn't the Christchurch shooter known for ranting online in advance of his murders? Did he not say exactly what he was going to do, then do it? I don't see what scale has to do with it. I also don't see how an absolute statement like "The person who is going to rob you is the one person who is definitely not going to tell you in advance that you're going to be robbed." can be believed. It only takes one counter example. This is a thread about anticipating crimes based on online commentary, something that could absolutely have flagged the Christchurch massacre.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Did he not say exactly what he was going to do, then do it? Yes. The point being, he wrote a manifesto, not a vaguely-ominous sounding tweet.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      Well he did both as far as I know. He had a history of posting racist messages including threats of violence. Ultimately he posted a manifesto and then took action on his words. The video itself was a warning because it started before the shooting. A timely enough warning based on that alone could have prevented this tragedy.
      - markdown 5y ago
        > He had a history of posting racist messages including threats of violence. Ultimately he posted a manifesto and then took action on his words. The video itself was a warning because it started before the shooting. Seems you know this background and motivation well. Since it perfectly fits the definition of terrorism, why won't you call him a terrorist? Is it because he isn't brown?
markdown 5y ago
> Christchurch murderer Because only brown people are terrorists, amirite?
- mulmen 5y ago
  > Because only brown people are terrorists, amirite? I chose "murderer" as a stronger word than "shooter". I didn't say anything about "brown people". I'm not sorry and you are out of line.
  - markdown 5y ago
    You say that like it's better. Shooter? A guy who kills his wife or robs and kills someone is a murderer. What happened in Christchurch was terrorism. Call it what it is. > I didn't say anything about "brown people". I did. Because you're trying to whitewash a terrorist attack, calling it murder. Whether or not you accept that that's where your unconscious bias took you, you're echoing the narratives around who and what a terrorist is supposed to be.