What does it mean to blame something as abstract as "a divisive society"? That's bit of a cop out, don't you think? There are real people, coming from conservative think tanks, conservative politicians, etc., that put these ideas into the shooter's head and allow guns to be so available. Lay the blame there.
The "divisive society" is a cop out insofar as it doesn't lead to a simple solution. But it is the ultimate problem in our society preventing any kind of progress.
We used to have a neutral ground of, say, a respected newspaper or TV show which had the ability to reign in radicalization, and would present issues by weighing both sides in a fair and representative way. This does no longer exist. It's us-vs-them, the other side is evil. Additionally our competitive society has no issue with creating and vilifying classes of losers and accepts a growing divide between rich and poor.
There you have your shooters. There you have Trump 2024 or who else comes along (what kind of politician can only thrive in this climate?)
My solution? I'd recommend everyone to smoke or drink some of your favorite drug or play some peaceful music and meditate over why the other side from your perspective is human, and what valid arguments they could have, or what made them think the way they do.
> We used to have a neutral ground of, say, a respected newspaper or TV show which had the ability to reign in radicalization, and would present issues by weighing both sides in a fair and representative way.
No, we didn't.
We used to have oligopolistic media with a fairly uniform set of biases and actively-pursued agendas across all outlets. Even farther back, media was more diverse and often hyperlocal, but still not “fair and representative”.
It wasn’t perfect but you're far too quick to reject the point about radicalization. Mass media had to be, well, mass and that meant that there was more of a centrist bias because advertisers didn’t want to be associated with fringe viewpoints. Before personalized advertising, if you sponsored something objectionable everyone knew it – quite different from where nobody sees the same ads and they can usually blame the marketplace for placements which attract criticism.
That doesn’t mean it was perfect but it absolutely did temper things a lot - they had to setup their own network to host a voice like Carlson for a larger national audience than Stormfront.
The U.S. also had a legal requirement to fairly present multiple sides of an issue until Republicans removed it in 1987. It is probably not a coincidence that this was around the same time that a handful or very wealthy people started pouring money into building highly-partisan networks.
Similarly in Germany we used to have only had 3 state TV channels, ultimately controlled by the ruling parties. Thinking about it now, I'm sure it was quite biased in all kinds of ways. And yet, people got their vaccinations without rioting.
This is false equivalence when you see conservatives, via, among other avenues, the biggest cable news network, pushing, for example, white replacement theory and other bits of society are not.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
I don't think there's a double standard. People often jump to that conclusion after they see a few data points they dislike, but this is fraught with bias because data points you dislike stand out more.
Howe many people need to complain about double standard being in the same general direction (i.e. the ban hammer coming down much faster on anyone arguing against whatever the majority opinion is here) before it becomes enough data points to matter?
Well, it depends on what you mean. If you mean how many data points before we care—we already care. That's why I take the time to respond to these things.
If you mean how many data points before we change our mind—it's not a numeric function. I know how we do things and why, and I know that there isn't that kind of double standard.
It was 100% clear the Buffalo shooter verbatim quoted extremist conservative ideas and racism, even plagiarized another shooter's manifesto.
> put ideas into the Antioch shooters head, the Waukesha drivers head, the NYC Subway shooters head
I didn't follow those incidents - can you provide links/evidence that there were left/progressive political motivations in those acts? Or is this more so the same notion that McDonald's put ideas about food in the NYC subway shooters head?
I've been reading about similar incidents to compare media coverage with Buffalo, so I can share some of the links you asked for:
> [Accused NYC subway shooter Frank] James posted material on social media linked to black identity extremist ideologies, including the Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, BLM and an image of black nationalist cop-killer Micah Johnson [who killed five police officers in Dallas in 2016].
> [Accused Waukesha parade killer Darrell Brooks shared] numerous posts attacking cops, comparing them to Ku Klux Klan members and calling them “violent street gangs” — as well as calling for violence toward white people, according to screenshots.
> There are also real people, coming from progressive think tanks, progressive politicans, etc.,
> material on social media linked to black identity extremist ideologies, including the Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, BLM, Micah Johnson
Is there even one example of quote A dog whistling violence related to quote B? This sounds a lot like "This politician wanted milquetoast police reform, therefore is causing violent extremist black nationalism."
It looks like a desperate reach for an equivalency that isn't there.
> This sounds a lot like "This politician wanted milquetoast police reform, therefore is causing violent extremist black nationalism."
In much the same way that politicians wanting "milquetoast" restrictions on immigration are being accused of "dog whistling violence" in Buffalo.
A reasonable person can see that progressive politicians who support BLM aren't calling for violence against police. A reasonable person can also see that conservatives who call for immigration restrictions aren't calling for attacks like Buffalo.
You understand that "Black extremist ideologies" is a different thing from "progressive", right?
Also, what you post about Waukesha driver has no connection to their motivation in the killings, and what you quoted, again, has nothing to do with progressive politics.
And Tucker Carlson has never called for violence against black people.
I shared those links because sometimes it's easier to see how the media uses tragedy to demonize a political position when you see a different political position being attacked, perhaps one you support.
> talking points repeatedly brought up on his show were directly brought up in the Buffalo shooter's manifesto.
And talking points repeatedly brought up by BLM were directly brought up by other attackers. So what?
> "The media" is not a monolith.
No, but most media outlets do use the same techniques, whatever their stance or affiliation.
> That appears to be a tactic of low quality outlets like the NY Post.
The NY Post has broken news that most outlets you might call "higher quality" denied for months before finally admitting they were true. Might I suggest reading a variety of sources, including some you disagree with?
And if you think, say, the NY Times doesn't engage in these tactics, read some of their recent coverage of Tucker Carlson.
Edit: This was interesting, but HN isn't the appropriate place for long back and forth debates. You can have the last word.
Again, the Buffalo shooter didn't merely "bring up" white replacement theory some time in their life; they said this implicitly violent ideology was their motivation for murder.
There are also real people, coming from progressive think tanks, progressive politicans, etc., that put ideas into the Antioch shooters head, the Waukesha drivers head, the NYC Subway shooters head.
