I think there’s a difference. School shootings are an atrocity, and, for the most part, we all agree on that. Sharing the manifesto lends a kind of legitimacy to the shooter and their reasons, and, on balance, we’d rather turn our back on them and condemn the violence.
With this CEO murder, many of us agree there’s such life-destroying abuse in the American healthcare commerce - of which this CEO was directly part, whether or not he’s to blame - that the problem is a serious topic of public conversation. The manifesto, and the events associated with it, are a relevant part of that conversation, whether we support them or not.
Discussing is certainly not the same as glorifying. And yes, I did label one and not the other as an atrocity, but I hope you understand that’s a simplification.
I do think in this case it’s an important question to be asked: why did the killer commit this murder; and why are so many people supporting it. And in this case, I don’t think it does justice, nor does society good, to wave it away with, “they’re a bad person who did a bad thing”. Perhaps in all murder cases some discussion, by some people, is necessary. But here, on balance, it seems particularly important and public.
Then discussing Osama Bin Laden’s manifesto, the Unabomber’s, McVeigh’s, or a school shooter’s isn’t glorifying either.
This isn’t a situation where you can say one is glorifying and the other isn’t. That’s just thought terminating propaganda which is really dangerous around acts of violence.
I’m not saying that discussing their motive is a bad thing. I’m saying sharing the manifesto either is or is not a glorification of their violence. There’s no gray area where it’s not glorification because you believe it was good or interesting. We accept that some glorification of violence is good, such as a politician talking about going after criminals. So the mere act of glorification isn’t bad in and of itself.
I think that’s probably the biggest problem people are having here. They think if they’re glorifying violence it’s automatically bad, or radical. But watching cool training videos for the Army is glorifying violence. Celebrating battlefield wins for Ukraine is glorifying violence. But so is saber rattling at Iran and proudly announcing the sweep of homeless encampments.
If we’re not asking the right questions then we can’t get the right answers. Especially when we use loaded questions that turn it into a team sport. This entire thread has shown that there is a thought terminating line of argument out there, “Glorifying Violence is bad, ergo sharing the manifesto is bad” and people assume they need to argue whether it’s actually glorifying violence. But that’s where conservatives want the argument because they can easily just hand waive it away. He literally shot and killed someone, his manifesto is obviously connected to violence. Instead the argument they need to be making is why discussing that manifesto is as good and proper as the discussion on whether we should invade Iraq in 2002.
I think there’s a difference. School shootings are an atrocity, and, for the most part, we all agree on that. Sharing the manifesto lends a kind of legitimacy to the shooter and their reasons, and, on balance, we’d rather turn our back on them and condemn the violence.
With this CEO murder, many of us agree there’s such life-destroying abuse in the American healthcare commerce - of which this CEO was directly part, whether or not he’s to blame - that the problem is a serious topic of public conversation. The manifesto, and the events associated with it, are a relevant part of that conversation, whether we support them or not.
That’s my point. You see one as an atrocity but not the other. So you don’t have a problem glorifying it. But it’s still doing exactly that.
Discussing is certainly not the same as glorifying. And yes, I did label one and not the other as an atrocity, but I hope you understand that’s a simplification.
I do think in this case it’s an important question to be asked: why did the killer commit this murder; and why are so many people supporting it. And in this case, I don’t think it does justice, nor does society good, to wave it away with, “they’re a bad person who did a bad thing”. Perhaps in all murder cases some discussion, by some people, is necessary. But here, on balance, it seems particularly important and public.
Then discussing Osama Bin Laden’s manifesto, the Unabomber’s, McVeigh’s, or a school shooter’s isn’t glorifying either.
This isn’t a situation where you can say one is glorifying and the other isn’t. That’s just thought terminating propaganda which is really dangerous around acts of violence.
I’m not saying that discussing their motive is a bad thing. I’m saying sharing the manifesto either is or is not a glorification of their violence. There’s no gray area where it’s not glorification because you believe it was good or interesting. We accept that some glorification of violence is good, such as a politician talking about going after criminals. So the mere act of glorification isn’t bad in and of itself.
I think that’s probably the biggest problem people are having here. They think if they’re glorifying violence it’s automatically bad, or radical. But watching cool training videos for the Army is glorifying violence. Celebrating battlefield wins for Ukraine is glorifying violence. But so is saber rattling at Iran and proudly announcing the sweep of homeless encampments.
If we’re not asking the right questions then we can’t get the right answers. Especially when we use loaded questions that turn it into a team sport. This entire thread has shown that there is a thought terminating line of argument out there, “Glorifying Violence is bad, ergo sharing the manifesto is bad” and people assume they need to argue whether it’s actually glorifying violence. But that’s where conservatives want the argument because they can easily just hand waive it away. He literally shot and killed someone, his manifesto is obviously connected to violence. Instead the argument they need to be making is why discussing that manifesto is as good and proper as the discussion on whether we should invade Iraq in 2002.
Well, advocating for common decency doesn’t work in the US. USians only understand arguments that use bullets.
Lmao, that’s not true but it did tickle me.