3 ms·

you just need one crazy individual for a shooting, but a whole system of state and private actors (that should've known better) to implement censorship.

esperent 3y ago
This is too narrow a view. The guy wasn't (just) crazy, he was radicalized by an international online far right hate community. I would venture to say that literally no mass shootings, anywhere, ever, has been the result of "one crazy individual". Certainly none of the ones that make the news. There's always a community, however loosely defined, that radicalized them into thinking that murdering people is a viable solution. That level of descent into madness requires support.
- depereo 3y ago
  There's a direct line between christchurch and jacksonville. They even put the same decorations on their killing implements. There's absolutely a community around these murders.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  I'm sorry, but are you arguing that literally no individual ever decides to kill multiple people without being radicalized first? This is an extremely narrow and naive view of the breadth of what humans can and will do.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  > This is too narrow a view. The guy wasn't (just) crazy, he was radicalized by an international online far right hate community. You say that, and maybe it’s true. But it’s impossible for any New Zealander to know that given it’s a crime for any of them to read his manifesto.
  - verve_rat 3y ago
    You are incorrect. If you have a good reason you can view restricted material: https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/resources/items/applying-for-an-exemption-to-show-a-restricted-publication/ https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/resources/items/app...
    - AmericanChopper 3y ago
      For starters, I’m certainly right that it is a crime for New Zealanders to read the document, and if an exemption process that individuals could leverage to access it, that wouldn’t change that fact. However, you’ve linked to a process that educators can use to screen restricted films to their students.
  - esperent 3y ago
    > it’s impossible for any New Zealander to know that given it’s a crime for any of them to read his manifesto. No, it's illegal, not impossible. Many illegal things are trivially easy. Besides, we don't need first hand sources to know things beyond a reasonable doubt.
    - AmericanChopper 3y ago
      There’s no legal way for any New Zealander to know the content of his manifesto, and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. I haven’t read it, and I’m not especially interested in the topic all together. But all of the commentary I’ve read about it to me seems either massively reductive or highly politicized. I have no certainty at all about the particulars of his motive. I have little interest in how New Zealand is run, but if I did this would be a massive concern for me. For the interested parties, the details of his motives are incredibly important. That was the basis of new liberty-revoking legislation in New Zealand, and you think that New Zealanders should have no reasonable doubt that their politicians and press (who may or may not have even read it themselves) weren’t portraying it in a way that simply suited their own agendas? Believing that the government should be the only party allowed to interpret crucially important information is very undemocratic.
- lll-o-lll 3y ago
  Nah that’s crap. I can give an easy counter-example. The Port-Arthur massacre in Australia. You know, when we got all the gun laws as a result. One guy, with issues, two guns, 35 dead. Motivation was revenge and fame. No community required. Your statement is just wrong.
  - esperent 3y ago
    What made him desire fame to such a radical degree that he figured shooting people was worth it? Radicalization can take many forms. It's not just religion or racism. And the vast majority of radicalized people don't kill anyone, they just become toxic to those around them and spread the radicalization.
    - lll-o-lll 3y ago
      He had a projected IQ of about 66. I don’t know if you’ve engaged with many people with intellectual impairment, but it doesn’t take much for “dumb idea” to gain traction. He wasn’t radicalised, look it up. He was just an evil git that should never have been allowed near a gun.
- threeseed 3y ago
  There have been a number of mass shootings that predate the Internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S... And even today a number of the shooters had specific targets in mind e.g. fellow students, teachers etc. So driven more by individual rage and easy access to weapons.
  - esperent 3y ago
    I intentionally didn't mention the internet in my comment. That's the main modern source of radicalization, sure. But people found a way before it too. In person, through books and mailing lists, by phone, by tv, whatever.

esperent 3y ago

This is too narrow a view. The guy wasn't (just) crazy, he was radicalized by an international online far right hate community. I would venture to say that literally no mass shootings, anywhere, ever, has been the result of "one crazy individual". Certainly none of the ones that make the news. There's always a community, however loosely defined, that radicalized them into thinking that murdering people is a viable solution. That level of descent into madness requires support.

depereo 3y ago
There's a direct line between christchurch and jacksonville. They even put the same decorations on their killing implements. There's absolutely a community around these murders.
MostlyStable 3y ago
I'm sorry, but are you arguing that literally no individual ever decides to kill multiple people without being radicalized first? This is an extremely narrow and naive view of the breadth of what humans can and will do.
AmericanChopper 3y ago
> This is too narrow a view. The guy wasn't (just) crazy, he was radicalized by an international online far right hate community. You say that, and maybe it’s true. But it’s impossible for any New Zealander to know that given it’s a crime for any of them to read his manifesto.
- verve_rat 3y ago
  You are incorrect. If you have a good reason you can view restricted material: https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/resources/items/applying-for-an-exemption-to-show-a-restricted-publication/ https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/resources/items/app...
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    For starters, I’m certainly right that it is a crime for New Zealanders to read the document, and if an exemption process that individuals could leverage to access it, that wouldn’t change that fact. However, you’ve linked to a process that educators can use to screen restricted films to their students.
- esperent 3y ago
  > it’s impossible for any New Zealander to know that given it’s a crime for any of them to read his manifesto. No, it's illegal, not impossible. Many illegal things are trivially easy. Besides, we don't need first hand sources to know things beyond a reasonable doubt.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    There’s no legal way for any New Zealander to know the content of his manifesto, and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. I haven’t read it, and I’m not especially interested in the topic all together. But all of the commentary I’ve read about it to me seems either massively reductive or highly politicized. I have no certainty at all about the particulars of his motive. I have little interest in how New Zealand is run, but if I did this would be a massive concern for me. For the interested parties, the details of his motives are incredibly important. That was the basis of new liberty-revoking legislation in New Zealand, and you think that New Zealanders should have no reasonable doubt that their politicians and press (who may or may not have even read it themselves) weren’t portraying it in a way that simply suited their own agendas? Believing that the government should be the only party allowed to interpret crucially important information is very undemocratic.
lll-o-lll 3y ago
Nah that’s crap. I can give an easy counter-example. The Port-Arthur massacre in Australia. You know, when we got all the gun laws as a result. One guy, with issues, two guns, 35 dead. Motivation was revenge and fame. No community required. Your statement is just wrong.
- esperent 3y ago
  What made him desire fame to such a radical degree that he figured shooting people was worth it? Radicalization can take many forms. It's not just religion or racism. And the vast majority of radicalized people don't kill anyone, they just become toxic to those around them and spread the radicalization.
  - lll-o-lll 3y ago
    He had a projected IQ of about 66. I don’t know if you’ve engaged with many people with intellectual impairment, but it doesn’t take much for “dumb idea” to gain traction. He wasn’t radicalised, look it up. He was just an evil git that should never have been allowed near a gun.
threeseed 3y ago
There have been a number of mass shootings that predate the Internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S... And even today a number of the shooters had specific targets in mind e.g. fellow students, teachers etc. So driven more by individual rage and easy access to weapons.
- esperent 3y ago
  I intentionally didn't mention the internet in my comment. That's the main modern source of radicalization, sure. But people found a way before it too. In person, through books and mailing lists, by phone, by tv, whatever.