Skip to main content

How to Discourage Aurora Copy Cats? (A Response)

A response to an article on The Atlantic:

Yuk! Where do I begin to critique this article?
  • I have read analyses that show that increased, broadly reported media portrayal decrease the likelihood of copycats. Other than the common belief, do you have any facts or studies regarding copycats?
  • You actually assume the usual simplistic analyses of loneliness and retaliation. It is more likely that Holmes failure in his Ph.D. program was an indication of a faltering ego, of someone slipping into mental illness, rather than the cause of his action
  • You believe Holmes is gratified at seeing his picture plastered across the media. That is true, only as far as any psychotic might be gratified to see his own picture.
  • His picture is disrespectful to victims? This is simply more pandering to the masses and that is usually just a justification for vigilantism, more of the punitive justice system that has failed for so long.
  • Certainly empathy matters, and concern for the current and future welfare of those impacted is good, but as mentioned, the concern for victims is typically used to for abrogate the accused’s' rights, and by punishing some even more severely. Instead, how about something that might reduce or solve the problem, like government-provided mental health services, or if you go along with the simplistic idea the cause was that he was a loser and alienated, why not just have true government-supported educational system. And as always, there is gun control.
Nothing that you would suggest, or that this government will do, will stop these crimes. There will always be psychoses. There will always be the disaffected and alienated. There is the internet, with its bounty of information about almost anything you might not want someone to know. Even the actions that might reduce the likelihood of these crimes are not even on the table, considering the loons that form the Republican party.

What are our options?
  • Gun control, not even a ban, just simply registering weaponry?
  • Cracking down on the small number of suppliers supplying most illegal guns?
  • Single payer health care, and the related mental health services?
  • Laws, or even administrative action, against bullying?
  • Republicans coming to their senses and joining the 21st century?
  • Cogent, broadly handled, analyses of the illness that these crimes entail?
How about we just throw a big party and invite everyone, taking special care to make the outsiders feel liked? There is no chance anything of real value will happen anyway...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews

Don't learn to code. Learn to think.

A response to  Don't learn to code. Learn to think. : Below is is my usual response when I see an article stating that everyone should learn to code:  Rather than programming, it is more important to impart the thinking of computer science (CS) than a specific implementation. Programming can be an end point for some students, but it is likely that programming itself will be increasingly automated, so that one needs more the general concepts common in CS. Even then, programming itself is to some degree a grunt task that one progresses beyond:  The following are typical components of a CS degree: algorithms & flowcharting systems thinking logical systems and set theory object-orientation & patterns probability, statistics, mathematics All of the above can be useful in an increasingly automated and data-driven world.

A Journey — if You Dare — Into the Minds of Silicon Valley Programmers

My responses in a NY Times comment section for the book, Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World by Clive Thompson : #1 - Link Although I've been a software developer for 15 years, and for longer alternating between a project manager, team lead, or analyst, mostly in finance, and now with a cancer center, I found it funny that you blame the people doing the coding for not seeing the harm it could cause. First, most scientific advancement has dark elements, and it is usually not the science but how it is used and sold by business people that is the problem. This leads to the second problem, in that it is not coding that is in itself problematic, but specifically how technology is harnessed to sell. It is normal and desirable to track users, to log actions, to collect telemetry, so as to monitor systems, respond to errors, and to develop new features, but that normal engineering practice has been used to surveil users for the purpose of selling. Blaming