Politically Correct OTD

Out of context: Reply #18

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 329 Responses
  • sofas0

    "Shooter" instead of saying the shooters name, claiming that he/she doesn't deserve publicity (unintentionally shining light on the fact that the news is show biz).
    Is this another American juvenile conclusion or the aim of social architects?
    Will it be ok to say Hitler in the future?

    sofas 0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • New speechsofas
    • I thought it was simply because not everyone considers the shooters name to be a household recognizable one. Shooter is to the point.monospaced
    • I didn't listen for or hear any media outlet explain their reason for saying shooter. I did hear his name about 10,000 times today though.monospaced
    • http://www.dontnamet…
      by anonymising the shooter the news isn't doing its job of educating the public on facts      sofas
    • also, i'm not sure what i'm talking aboutsofas
    • to blend in, best choice is be silent. second best is to repeat what you heard in the news. if further questioned, say you didn't think about it or don't knowsofas
    • I'm not sure that link you shared qualifies as show biz, or that the media shares the same sentiment. They are saying and showing his name. A lot.monospaced
    • https://nonotoriety.…sofas
    • It's also a link to the group that trains officers nationally to handle situations just like this, not some juvenile media company.monospaced
    • They're certainly not social architects either.monospaced
    • @mono yes, but also see above linkssofas
    • I can't find the vid/transcript, but Anderson Cooper said on CNN that he won't say the shooters name because of the above reasonssofas
    • it's a good thing. who knows what the shooter's incentives are but I would imagine notoriety is part of it. they shouldn't even show his picture IMOhotroddy
    • @hotroddy, should Hitler's name and picture be censored?sofas
    • found it, starts about 03:05
      https://www.mediaite…      sofas
    • Hitler? Fuck’s sake. One was a man who incited war. Twice. And methodically exterminated 6 million Jews. The other is a old guy who went mental with a gun.face_melter
    • Your comparison is moronic at best.face_melter
    • So dictatorship notoriety isn't a thing?sofas
    • Hitler is always referred to as Hitler. Unless you want to use the name for a child, I'm not sure what your point is. :)monospaced
    • @mono, during WW2 there were mass killings, but should we not utter the name of those who initiated them since that might give them notoriety and encouragesofas
    • others to follow their path? this could cause exactly the opposite, giving the killers G-D status, or don't say the devil's name cause that will summon himsofas
    • the fuck are you asking me for? I'm not making an argument on the matter, just pointing out that your logic is not entirely soundmonospaced
    • utter any name you want, i don't give a damnmonospaced
    • it was a rhetoric question, didn't mean to upset you, just trying to explain since you said your not sure what my point issofas
    • I'm not upset. If your point is that there's some political correct movement to not mention the names, then I'm simply saying it's probably not very strong.monospaced
    • I've made my point clear, with several examples. Have a nice day.monospaced
    • Thanks, you too :)sofas
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread