Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber

[davedan]

Don't pretend that doesn't excite you Queen. That's right 34 years of drecipitude.

[wrightway]

There is a new serial killer in Cleveland who allegedly was influenced by the publicity of a different Cleveland serial killer. This stuff is still seriously rare.

[The Illusive Man]

As he said, he "want[ed] to leave a lasting impression on the world". He wanted to be remembered for this, and famous for this. He knew that killing people would make him famous. Someone explain to me how you get famous in the 1990s without the media, because I'd certainly like to know it.

Eric’s psychotic urges to cause harm existed since childhood because he was psychotic. As I quoted before anything was a justification. He simply did not view an event one day and then spontaneously decide that it was time to plan a mass murder. Psychosis does not work that way.

"it'll be like the LA riots, the oklahoma bombing, WWII, vietnam, duke and doom all mixed together. maybe we will even start a little rebellion or revolution to fuck things up as much as we can. i want to leave a lasting impression on the world."

Videogames, history, television, his own perceived self-styled rebel rousing. To censor the media in an attempt to stop a psychotic person is an ineffectual reactive measure. Finding and treating such psychotic persons before they cause harm is how to stop them.

I have to ask with due seriousness. Are you seriously this unaware, do you not recognize this sentiment from the past? You have put forth the same stupid argument calling for the banning of video games. Worse yet this argument is still present in academia!

It cannot be established 100%, obviously, because he's dead. However, if the experts on a subject speak on the subject, their opinion counts more than a random person on the internet. The experts have spoken, and they disagree with you. They are far more knowledgeable than you on this. We don't like it when fundies try to argue with scientists on things they don't understand, and I doubt you're nearly as educated in psychology as the American Psychological Association, so please don't do the exact same thing that the fundies do when they argue with biologists, geneticists, archeologists and geologists.

Look at all those words and anger yet not a link to a work or source showing a shred of causality.

I'm not saying the message of a work mutates to the timeframe it's told. I'm saying a work reflects the mindset of the timeframe it is from.

The original work yes, as culture changes the work is changed with it. Common confounding factors include oral tradition and translation anomalies/loss of context. Sleeping Beauty is not raped in the modern versions of the story for a reason.

[Lithp]

Uh, yeah, the problem with Fundies isn't that they argue with smart people, it's that they are completely unwilling to see when their arguments are flawed, relying a lot on appeals to authority, tradition, population, ad hom, etc.

[PosthumanHeresy]

There is a new serial killer in Cleveland who allegedly was influenced by the publicity of a different Cleveland serial killer. This stuff is still seriously rare.

Rare or not, people are dying.

As he said, he "want[ed] to leave a lasting impression on the world". He wanted to be remembered for this, and famous for this. He knew that killing people would make him famous. Someone explain to me how you get famous in the 1990s without the media, because I'd certainly like to know it.

Eric’s psychotic urges to cause harm existed since childhood because he was psychotic. As I quoted before anything was a justification. He simply did not view an event one day and then spontaneously decide that it was time to plan a mass murder. Psychosis does not work that way.

"it'll be like the LA riots, the oklahoma bombing, WWII, vietnam, duke and doom all mixed together. maybe we will even start a little rebellion or revolution to fuck things up as much as we can. i want to leave a lasting impression on the world."

Videogames, history, television, his own perceived self-styled rebel rousing. To censor the media in an attempt to stop a psychotic person is an ineffectual reactive measure. Finding and treating such psychotic persons before they cause harm is how to stop them.

I have to ask with due seriousness. Are you seriously this unaware, do you not recognize this sentiment from the past? You have put forth the same stupid argument calling for the banning of video games. Worse yet this argument is still present in academia!

First off, I am not blaming fiction. I am blaming flesh-and-blood killers who are real people in reality getting real media attention by the real media in real life. Secondly, it's still the thing that set him off. It was the catalyst.

It cannot be established 100%, obviously, because he's dead. However, if the experts on a subject speak on the subject, their opinion counts more than a random person on the internet. The experts have spoken, and they disagree with you. They are far more knowledgeable than you on this. We don't like it when fundies try to argue with scientists on things they don't understand, and I doubt you're nearly as educated in psychology as the American Psychological Association, so please don't do the exact same thing that the fundies do when they argue with biologists, geneticists, archeologists and geologists.

Look at all those words and anger yet not a link to a work or source showing a shred of causality.

~facedesks repeatedly~ Here's a sociologist discussing both what should be done about this, and discussing the historical similarities between highly-reported suicides and increases in them.

I'm not saying the message of a work mutates to the timeframe it's told. I'm saying a work reflects the mindset of the timeframe it is from.

The original work yes, as culture changes the work is changed with it. Common confounding factors include oral tradition and translation anomalies/loss of context. Sleeping Beauty is not raped in the modern versions of the story for a reason.

Ergo why the original tale shows the culture of the creator, while the modified versions show their modifiers'.

[The Illusive Man]

First off, I am not blaming fiction. I am blaming flesh-and-blood killers who are real people in reality getting real media attention by the real media in real life. Secondly, it's still the thing that set him off. It was the catalyst.

You keep missing the point, detachment from reality. Dave Cullen put it simply, “a "normal" lens.” You are trying to predict the actions and reactions a psychopath has through “a "normal" lens.” Psychopaths cognate very differently than sane persons, their behaviors and outlook are warped because of this. For the sake of simplicity call it “a warped lens.”

~facedesks repeatedly~ Here's a sociologist discussing both what should be done about this, and discussing the historical similarities between highly-reported suicides and increases in them.

You just confounded suicidal persons with psychotic persons. I have to ask, how and why do you think that these two groups of people are similar to the point of predictability? Heck the book you cite as a source designates an entire chapter (40. Psychopath) spelling this out in no uncertain terms.

(click to show/hide)

Diagnosis didn't solve the crime, but it laid the foundation. Ten years afterward, Eric still baffled the public, which insisted on assessing his motives through a "normal" lens. Eric was neither normal nor insane. Psychopathy (si-COP-uh-thee) represents a third category. Psychopathic brains don't function like those in either of the other groups, but they are consistently similar to one another. Eric killed for two reasons: to demonstrate his superiority and to enjoy it.
To a psychopath, both motives make sense. "Psychopaths are capable of behavior that normal people find not only horrific but baffling," wrote Dr. Robert Hare, the leading authority on psychopaths. "They can torture and mutilate their victims with about the same sense of concern that we feel when we carve a turkey for Thanksgiving dinner."
Eric saw humans as chemical compounds with an inflated sense of their own worth. "its just all nature, chemistry, and math," he wrote. "you die. burn, melt, evaporate, decay."

Was there some sort of misconception, did you over generalize, do you just outright lack knowledge pertaining to the field of psychology?

Eric did not exhibit a Mood Disorder, he exhibited a Psychotic Disorder. There is a huge difference between the two. There is a reason why Psychotic Disorders were Axis 1 Clinical in the DSM-IV TR, detachment from reality.

On a side note that article you linked made me IRL mad due to the sheer incompetence of its author. Not defining terms, in this case "copycat effects." Good grief what is this, high school? The opinion piece from which that term is derived is worse, flat out confounding multiple cases with different psycho-social factors.

[Witchyjoshy]

TIM do you have to keep editing your post several times so that I keep thinking there's actual new content and then I click on the topic and there's nothing?

[The Illusive Man]

TIM do you have to keep editing your post several times so that I keep thinking there's actual new content and then I click on the topic and there's nothing?

Actually that seems to be a problem when I route traffic through TOR, which is damn near always. Should use JAP or I2P instead I guess. I have found that both work with Privoxy, though not at the same time.I  have to test if node to node connections (not node to internet) are man-in-the-middle proof though, because TOR's is.

Code: [Select]

#Jap
#forward / 127.0.0.1:4001
#I2P
#forward / 127.0.0.1:4444


[Lt. Fred]

As it often does, FAIR hits the nail on the head

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/07/25/the-rolling-stone-cover-and-the-new-ideological-threat/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-rolling-stone-cover-and-the-new-ideological-threat

[PosthumanHeresy]

As it often does, FAIR hits the nail on the head

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/07/25/the-rolling-stone-cover-and-the-new-ideological-threat/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-rolling-stone-cover-and-the-new-ideological-threat

Hardly. That's not even addressing my point. I'm not talking about their race or anything. My point is you put a terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone. Why not put them on the cover of People and Us? After all, if it's fine for them to be on Rolling Stone, why not there? I think they should be on no magazine covers. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Not Time. Not Newsweek. Most certainly not fucking Rolling Stone.

[The Illusive Man]

As it often does, FAIR hits the nail on the head

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/07/25/the-rolling-stone-cover-and-the-new-ideological-threat/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-rolling-stone-cover-and-the-new-ideological-threat

Hardly. That's not even addressing my point. I'm not talking about their race or anything. My point is you put a terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone. Why not put them on the cover of People and Us? After all, if it's fine for them to be on Rolling Stone, why not there? I think they should be on no magazine covers. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Not Time. Not Newsweek. Most certainly not fucking Rolling Stone.

Which is not censorship because?

[PosthumanHeresy]

As it often does, FAIR hits the nail on the head

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/07/25/the-rolling-stone-cover-and-the-new-ideological-threat/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-rolling-stone-cover-and-the-new-ideological-threat

Hardly. That's not even addressing my point. I'm not talking about their race or anything. My point is you put a terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone. Why not put them on the cover of People and Us? After all, if it's fine for them to be on Rolling Stone, why not there? I think they should be on no magazine covers. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Not Time. Not Newsweek. Most certainly not fucking Rolling Stone.

Which is not censorship because?

It's not government mandated. It would be corporations having tact. However, tact is dead. The almighty dollar killed it. I'm glad to see you support the pursuit of money over any tact or sanity.

[m52nickerson]

Hardly. That's not even addressing my point. I'm not talking about their race or anything. My point is you put a terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone. Why not put them on the cover of People and Us? After all, if it's fine for them to be on Rolling Stone, why not there? I think they should be on no magazine covers. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Not Time. Not Newsweek. Most certainly not fucking Rolling Stone.

So your argument has boiled down to "I don't agree with it so it should not be."

[PosthumanHeresy]

Hardly. That's not even addressing my point. I'm not talking about their race or anything. My point is you put a terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone. Why not put them on the cover of People and Us? After all, if it's fine for them to be on Rolling Stone, why not there? I think they should be on no magazine covers. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Not Time. Not Newsweek. Most certainly not fucking Rolling Stone.

So your argument has boiled down to "I don't agree with it so it should not be."

No, it's more along the lines of "It's been shown, no matter how much TIM tries to deny it, that this is a bad, bad thing that causes problems (and seriously, how can anyone support fame for murderers?)"

[Lithp]

Hardly. That's not even addressing my point. I'm not talking about their race or anything. My point is you put a terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone. Why not put them on the cover of People and Us? After all, if it's fine for them to be on Rolling Stone, why not there? I think they should be on no magazine covers. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Not Time. Not Newsweek. Most certainly not fucking Rolling Stone.

So your argument has boiled down to "I don't agree with it so it should not be."

No, it's more along the lines of "It's been shown, no matter how much TIM tries to deny it, that this is a bad, bad thing that causes problems (and seriously, how can anyone support fame for murderers?)"

I haven't seen you post any studies. A researcher's opinion is not a study.