It’s becoming less and less common. Stephen Paddocks motives weren’t released til 3 years or so later. If the Uvalde shooter had one it wasn’t released. Anything known about the Newtown shooter was found by journalists way later. The rest happen when the killer is still alive.
This is the only case that I know of where the killers writings are under control of the victims families.
You’ve been spending hours pretending that there is a scenario where the murder of children can be rationalized into a logical motive. They. Can. Not.
Making their manifesto increases their celebrity, which is a bad thing. Because spree killers want to be famous. This is 101 of the profile of these type of killers. You’re too invested in the culture war around this to see the occoms razor.
Low energy. I was saying you were assuming this ruling had something to do with a christo-facist agenda, numbnuts
There’s way to small of a sample size for non-white cis male shooters for you to justify that statement. What was Nicolas Cruzes motivation? Or James Holmes? Or charles Whittmans? They’re just violent psychopaths. Attaching a logical motivation to the acts of violent psychopaths is a fools errand, regardless of the identity.
Even the bullied trope comes from the Columbine shooters and they were not bullied, they were bullies. The saturation of media coverage led to presumptions of their motives. The public making those diagnoses is harmful and increases the celebrity of the killers which will motivate the next one.
That’s not a presumption though, or even speculation. Was the shooter bullied by kids they killed? No, again, that’s speculation though. Even if they were bullied, it’s misplaced anger and an inability to cope with their own issues. Releasing the manifesto would validate their martyrdom.
Assuming this ruling has anything to do with a christo-facist agenda is the most egregious and, likely, wrong presumption anyone is making. If I’m defending the christo-facist you are defending the motives of a, literal, mass murder of children.
Presuming how? My main point is that the shooters motivations is mostly irrelevant and releasing their writings dould encourage copycats. Like we actually saw with Elliot Rodgers.
What am I presuming?
That’s apples and oranges. This shooter has the potential to be the Trans version of Elliot Rodgers. Trying to attach a christo-facist motivation to this ruling is a stretch and a half.
The motivations of mass killers isn’t really relevant for anything. People capable of that level of violence are such an anomaly that other indicators are more important, from a psychological perspective, than their self-determined motives.
Largest mass killer in us history was the Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock. His motivation was that he was feeling slighted by the casinos for not getting enough perks for being a “big spender”. What is a psychologist supposed to do with that for helping prevent other mass shooters? Trying to attach some silence of the lambs bullshit to crimes like this is foolish. Even then, that’s the FBI doing it which then can be trickled out to medical journals etc. The best thing for the public is for these killer to be remembered as dead monsters.
It is material was reviewed by a judge, the shooters family and the victims families. If you want to say it’s presumptively a manifesto and not almost definitely a manifesto. Then use that distinction to rationalize your point, congratulations.
You’re missing the point entirely. Releasing the material was, presumptively, part of the shooters motivation. Increasing the notoriety of the perpetrator. Releasing the material would validate the shooters motives and encourage copycats. I don’t know why you would think that’s not enough.
Perfect example of this is california senate races and the jungle primaries. Establishment democrats help boost the republican so the head to head wont Schiff vs Porter.
The advertising was an easy and obvious example. I set you up for a straw man but whatever. If you don’t understand the harmful effects social media has on mental health and how it’s different from other forms of media/content, I’m not going to hold your hand through that. The sophistication of engagement algorithms should be obvious. The purpose of a surgeons general warning would be to raise awareness of those specific mental health issues that can be aggravated by excessive social media use. Raising the awareness of an issue is step in the right direction. Fine to call it a band aid but there’s no need to shit on progress of any type.
Lol what? You’re going from comic book bans to covid microchips now. Idk you’re weird.
That is apples and oranges. Clicking through rabbit holes isn’t the result of an aggressive algorithm designed to prime you for products being advertised. The motivation for the content being hosted is the major issue and exploitation of younger people in service of that motivation.
https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/teen-social-media-use
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7785056/
This Harvard one is over 7 years old.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable-knowledge/17/12/social-media-and-teen-anxiety
I think you have a critical thinking issue.
“Probably”
Christian freak out 80 years ago vs modern doctors. Samesies, right? Ya dunce.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7785056/
https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/teen-social-media-use
Comparing decades old satan panic stuff with modern behavioral sciences is legit the dumbest thing I’ve read today. Congrats.
I’m 13 and I think you’re right. What are primaries btw?
I would highly encourage people to look at the motives of the OKC bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh. Gun culture, etc. It’s been a long evolution of similar ideas. What’s scares me though is these ideas becoming normalized and mainstream. Best exemplified by MAGA embracing the big lie and all the shit related to J6th.
Removed by mod