EPTOn December 19 2012 05:32 Mindcrime wrote:
I disagree; I think CNN is just incompetent.
I disagree; I think CNN is just incompetent.
^
MSNBC is more the Fox equivalent, though most media sources are treating this story with equal stupidity.
Connecticut school shooting - Page 44
| Forum Index > General Forum |
The gun control argument stops now. I know it's fun to argue about it in the heat of the tragedy when you can get all worked up about it but it's pretty disrespectful and if you don't care enough about the issue to make a separate topic for gun control then you don't care enough to shit on the tragedy by exploiting it. A gun control topic can be found here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472 Also stop posting links to his facebook. TL will be no part of an unconfirmed witch hunt. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
^ MSNBC is more the Fox equivalent, though most media sources are treating this story with equal stupidity. | ||
|
Prugelhugel
Austria637 Posts
I'd like to say your mainstream media stations are corrupt liars which try to manipulate peoples perception but the big news stations here are on the same train. The first thing I've heard (From an Austrian TV report) of the shooting was that one of his hobbies was playing videogames. Nice finding, every teenager today more or less plays "violent videogames". Correlation and Causalisation is really hard to understand, isn't it? | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
| ||
|
0x64
Finland4567 Posts
On December 19 2012 04:48 Shinobi1982 wrote: Seriously GTFO CNN, corrupted piece of shit. http://www.theonion.com/video/in-wake-of-tragedy-americans-demand-reform-of-ever,30762/ The onion says it all | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On December 19 2012 05:33 farvacola wrote: ^ MSNBC is more the Fox equivalent, though most media sources are treating this story with equal stupidity. How sick is it we know our media is beyond corrupt, our government is beyond corrupt, our people are being poisoned with just about every pill and chemical they can think of through water/food/air/entertainment and yet nothing is done...? *Edit* ...and to the video above, I want to punch that "expert" square in his face. What a bunch of senseless posturing so the viewer is convinced he's someone who knows what he's talking about. What's worse is BS like this actually reaches people and they believe it. How angry would TL be if they actually tried to take some action to stop SC or video games as a result of these morons? | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On December 19 2012 06:14 sCCrooked wrote: How angry would TL be if they actually tried to take some action to stop SC or video games as a result of these morons? Personally... Not angry enough to shoot anybody, but definitely angry enough to kick whomever was the most responsible in the teeth. | ||
|
HollowLord
United States3862 Posts
On December 19 2012 06:14 sCCrooked wrote: How angry would TL be if they actually tried to take some action to stop SC or video games as a result of these morons? Not angry at all because that would be stupid and would never go anywhere. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On December 19 2012 06:14 sCCrooked wrote: How sick is it we know our media is beyond corrupt, our government is beyond corrupt, our people are being poisoned with just about every pill and chemical they can think of through water/food/air/entertainment and yet nothing is done...? *Edit* ...and to the video above, I want to punch that "expert" square in his face. What a bunch of senseless posturing so the viewer is convinced he's someone who knows what he's talking about. What's worse is BS like this actually reaches people and they believe it. How angry would TL be if they actually tried to take some action to stop SC or video games as a result of these morons? From a first world perspective, I really think that shit's not that bad. Yeah, things are fucked up, but they've always been fucked up. The government in particular is better than most historical models, and even though we have terrible tragedies like this, on the whole we are living longer, healthier lives and are wealthier than we have ever been. Child mortality has seen unbelievable improvement. There are millions of people who got to live through their childhood who would have died if they were born just a century ago. Under - 5 (infant) mortality rate (for whites) per 1000 has dropped in the past 100 years from 96 to 6. It was over 10% in 1900! In 1850 it was 216 for whites and 340 for blacks, per 1000 births. Go to Table 1 and check out the rates: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography Sorry if this is slightly OT but I wanted to say something positive in such a dark thread. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On December 19 2012 07:00 HollowLord wrote: Not angry at all because that would be stupid and would never go anywhere. The hypothetical scenario Crooked presented didn't include a video game ban that went nowhere. Are you suggesting that you would be angry by intentionally making the question you're being asked irrellevent? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44584 Posts
On December 19 2012 04:48 Shinobi1982 wrote: + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHzTlkAGNIE Seriously GTFO CNN, corrupted piece of shit. You've got to be kidding me. Bronze league professor right there. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On December 19 2012 07:08 TheFrankOne wrote: From a first world perspective, I really think that shit's not that bad. Yeah, things are fucked up, but they've always been fucked up. The government in particular is better than most historical models, and even though we have terrible tragedies like this, on the whole we are living longer, healthier lives and are wealthier than we have ever been. Child mortality has seen unbelievable improvement. There are millions of people who got to live through their childhood who would have died if they were born just a century ago. Under - 5 (infant) mortality rate (for whites) per 1000 has dropped in the past 100 years from 96 to 6. It was over 10% in 1900! In 1850 it was 216 for whites and 340 for blacks, per 1000 births. Go to Table 1 and check out the rates: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography Sorry if this is slightly OT but I wanted to say something positive in such a dark thread. Why are the deaths for whites counted separately from the deaths for blacks? Also, is there any particular reason you chose not to present the change in infant mortality rates for blacks over the past 100 years? How does that even relate to the quote? I understand the first paragraph. EDIT: After checking the tables on that link it seems as if there's an almost 3:1 ratio of Black:White infant mortality. If you were trying to cheer us up I don't know if it worked. | ||
|
HollowLord
United States3862 Posts
On December 19 2012 07:20 dUTtrOACh wrote: The hypothetical scenario Crooked presented didn't include a video game ban that went nowhere. Are you suggesting that you would be angry by intentionally making the question you're being asked irrellevent? ...............What? | ||
|
HotGore
Canada26 Posts
Also, I wonder if they have read what twitter thinks about all this, as it seems like they spend more time and effort in reporting on what twitter thinks of everything, than doing real journalism. CNN is the news channel for the lowest common denominator. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
You said you would not be angry....... because it wouldn't happen. That's like being asked the question (in 1992): "Would you be angry if terrorists attacked the World Trade Center's twin towers, killing thousands of people?" And you respond with: "No, I wouldn't be angry, because it wouldn't happen." Do you see what I mean now? I was only asking for clarification on what you actually think. If you think it's not important, that's cool, but I'd still like to know since you bothered answering in the first place. | ||
|
HollowLord
United States3862 Posts
On December 19 2012 07:40 dUTtrOACh wrote: You said you would not be angry....... because it wouldn't happen. That's like being asked the question: "Would you be angry if terrorists attacked the World Trade Center's twin towers, killing thousands of people?" And you respond with: "No, I wouldn't be angry, because it wouldn't happen." Do you see what I mean now? I was only asking for clarification on what you actually think. If you think it's not important, that's cool, but I'd still like to know since you bothered answering in the first place. You missed the word "tried". They "tried" to take some action. To use your example(And great job using 9/11 as a fucking example) "Would you be angry if terrorists TRIED to attack a city, killing thousands of people?" To which I respond: No, because they would fail. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On December 19 2012 07:41 HollowLord wrote: You missed the word "tried". They "tried" to take some action. To use your example(And great job using 9/11 as a fucking example) "Would you be angry if terrorists TRIED to attack a city, killing thousands of people?" To which I respond: No, because they would fail. 9/11 - Easy reference point. OK. I think I understand your answer. You're clairvoyant and know the outcomes of things before they happen. All attempts to reduce violence in the media will fail. It turns out we love violence. Gotcha. EDIT: I suppose for those of us who would actually be angered by the attempt, you'd have to be thankful for our lack of indifference and willingness to stand up for our love of violence. EDIT2: I also remember a certain emotional response that people had when they "tried" to enact SOPA. | ||
|
Silentness
United States2821 Posts
On December 19 2012 04:48 Shinobi1982 wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHzTlkAGNIE Seriously GTFO CNN, corrupted piece of shit. That video was more promotional than harmful to the SC2 image. It was like a high paced trailer for SC2 (compared to the boring early game where you build workers during the first couple minutes). I never really take CNN/Fox news etc. seriously. They are always trying to find a scapegoat and make a buck off exaggerated ideas. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On December 19 2012 07:49 Silentness wrote: That video was more promotional than harmful to the SC2 image. It was like a high paced trailer for SC2 (compared to the boring early game where you build workers during the first couple minutes). I never really take CNN/Fox news etc. seriously. They are always trying to find a scapegoat and make a buck off exaggerated ideas. That poor immortal sentry all-in  . And that bio getting decimated by colossus is just heart-breaking.EDIT: Oh, damn, they're roaches, and that immortal sentry attack got recalled. This video is a trip. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On December 19 2012 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: You've got to be kidding me. Bronze league professor right there. I see nothing wrong with the content of the report except that the tone is suggesting something far beyond what the content would indicate, and unfortunately a ton of people will eat that right up. It's another case of the general public being unable to tell the difference between correlation and causality. Yes, I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, of young male violent criminals like to play violent video games. Is it so shocking that someone with homicidal tendencies would enjoy acting on them in a virtual reality? Not really, it's what I would expect them to do and hopefully it satisfies their urge for violent crime. Is it the game's fault when that person shoots up a school? No not really...what about the millions of other people who play the game and live normal, adjusted lives? But no, people won't see it that way. Something has to be blamed for this horrific tragedy, so why not something the baby boomer generation has never really understood the appeal of? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44584 Posts
On December 19 2012 07:57 ZasZ. wrote: I see nothing wrong with the content of the report except that the tone is suggesting something far beyond what the content would indicate, and unfortunately a ton of people will eat that right up. It's another case of the general public being unable to tell the difference between correlation and causality. Yes, I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, of young male violent criminals like to play violent video games. Is it so shocking that someone with homicidal tendencies would enjoy acting on them in a virtual reality? Not really, it's what I would expect them to do and hopefully it satisfies their urge for violent crime. Is it the game's fault when that person shoots up a school? No not really...what about the millions of other people who play the game and live normal, adjusted lives? But no, people won't see it that way. Something has to be blamed for this horrific tragedy, so why not something the baby boomer generation has never really understood the appeal of? I just find it annoying that they rush to an explanation that's so clearly full of shit. I mean seriously. If the shooter wanted to replicate StarCraft, he would have found a way to lift off the school and fly it to a corner of his town. | ||
| ||
