Captain_Jimmy_T_Kirk

joined 1 year ago
 
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Because a columbine type of school shooting is different than property damage.

And people writing these articles know that "some destructive teens did donuts in the school parking lot at night and shot the stop sign" isn't what people think when they say that a "school shooting" has happened.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

None of it should be happening is right. I just get a skeezy feeling when articles use language they know will get people thinking one thing when they mean another.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's horrible, don't get me wrong. I worry about my own little one, but the distinction is an order of magnitude of a difference in my head. Like the distinction between a troublemaker throwing a lit match in a trash can vs some maniac dousing a building in gasoline.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (13 children)

This is depressing, but it also bothers me that there's such a large distinction between how the average person would picture a "school shooting" and what these articles are talking about. Is there a name for that in journalism?

Like, if someone told me "there was a school shooting at school X today", like most people I would immediately picture someone walking into the building and firing indiscriminately at everyone. Not, "a couple of teens got in a fight in the parking lot, and one pulled out a gun", or "someone shot at the school's sign". (Which are also horrible, but I feel like we need separate terms)

From the article:

According to the report, the most commonly known situations associated with such incidents included "escalation of dispute," "drive-by," "illegal activity," "accidental firing of a weapon" and "intentional property damage."

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Who is influencing all these tech companies to be this greedy lately?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's been an internet thing for long before 2016 (at least mid 00s in my memory), so I don't associate it with them.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (6 children)

They took the pepe frogs for a while too, but I've been seeing them come back. Nature is healing.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

I truly can't picture it.

 
 
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

These are significantly higher than they used to be, but nowhere near some of the most out of touch numbers I've seen people claim online.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd love to find one

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

You're welcome. Go out there and be free.

[–] [email protected] 74 points 1 year ago (3 children)

"Mannanafnanefnd"

Who watches the watchers?

 
 
 
586
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
 
 
 
 
 
view more: next ›