Slashdot Mirror
Yik Yak, After Complaints From Schools, Suspends Its Service In Chicago
The Chicago Tribune reports that Yik Yak, a mobile app that can (among other things) be used for anonymous communications, has drawn complaints from several local schools, who are unhappy that students can use it to bully or pester others.
"'The problem, as you might imagine, is that the anonymity is empowering certain individuals to post comments about others that are hurtful, harassing and sometimes quite disturbing,' Joseph Ruggiero, head of the Upper School at Francis W. Parker School in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, wrote in an email to parents last week. ... In light of the controversy, Yik Yak's co-founder said the company was disabling the app in the Chicago area and will attempt to specifically prevent it from being used on high school or middle school grounds."
it works great :)
If only there was some way to prevent people from harassing me on this app. I could uninstall it, or just not use it - naw we'll just pressure the company to disable it in my whole area.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
The trend towards de-anonymizing the Web (and other mobile communications), frankly, sucks. I don't want to sign into Facebook to comment on a Detroit Red Wings news article. I don't want to sign into Google+ to comment on a youtube video (only to have them tell me my name isn't real). I imagine and fear the day when our global unicast IPv6 address is tied to our DNA or some other biometric. Governments don't want us to be anonymous, to communicate without knowing who it is that's sending and who is receiving.
I am Audience.
What I don't get is that with this app there's actual evidence of the bullying that teachers can address. Sure it's "anonymous" but how much does anyone want to bet that there's enough information available that it wouldn't be too difficult to determine who was sending the messages?
I suppose it's just easier for them to sweep the problem under the rug rather than actually bothering to deal with it.
When it comes to schools, and particularly the "How dare you accuse my little angel" parents, you need to do a hell of a lot more than "determine" which student sent it.
If only there was some way for me to sum up and simultaneously dismiss a complex social phenomena that has a damaging effect on the lives of thousands of vulnerable young people with a single glib post on Slashdot...
It's pretty easy to dismiss such a non-issue.
Thank you Dave Raggett
If only there was some way to prevent people from harassing me on this app. I could uninstall it, or just not use it - naw we'll just pressure the company to disable it in my whole area.
And when the whole school is abuzz about how you supposedly raped someone behind the gym last Friday, or fucked Mrs. Fingerwood, or like to use your phone to surreptitiously record other dudes in the locker room, or that someone is planning on stabbing you during the lunch period, or whatever... ignoring the app does what for you, exactly? There's plenty of room for debate about how to deal with the issue, but what happens in the app doesn't stay confined to the app so your specific argument is bogus, +5 insightful or not.
Just seen on a wall at Francis W. Parker School:
Joseph Ruggero is teh faggert.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's not even on the top fifty cities in the world by murder rate. Thirteenth if you limit it to just US according to this page.
In terms of absolute numbers, yeah, Chicago is quite high. But for the third biggest city in the nation, that's not exactly stunning. It's a purely manufactured crisis, to sell news, to increase spending on law enforcement, to justify gun control.
oh get over yourself. Bullying will happen, It sucks but its reality. These app creators have no reason to feel responsible for someone elses actions
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Is sharpie going to stop selling markers in this area? I remember someone writing on a bathroom stall that I was a faggot. No idea who.
If only there was some way to prevent people from harassing me on this app. I could uninstall it, or just not use it - naw we'll just pressure the company to disable it in my whole area.
Everyone in school sees these posts. Everyone in school talks about these posts. Uninstalling the app on your kid's phone doesn't solve the problem.
Francis Parker School in Chicago is where the 1% send their kids. So, there is a substantial number of entitled little turds who have learned from their parents that bullying is one of the perks of being rich and powerful.
It does not surprise me that this has happened at that school.
I have first-hand experience there and far poorer inner city schools, and there is behavior at FP that you would never see in the inner-city school.
You are welcome on my lawn.
All those sorts of rumors were common in my high school (pre mobile phone), phones have nothing at all to do with it. And nothing ever came of the rumors - gossip was fun, but no one really took it seriously (and in my school, most of the rumors were true).
Did some precious perfect snowflake get his wittle feelers hurt? Maybe it's time to grow up. Has the new generation somehow lost the natural skepticism towards anonymous rumors? Somehow I doubt it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What I don't get is that with this app there's actual evidence of the bullying that teachers can address.
Unless these messages are being sent during school hours from school property, I don't see how teachers have any responsibility in the matter. It's private messaging between people and they have their right to speech. If folks are feeling harassed or defamed, maybe the parents of the kids need to work this out or seek the appropriate legal action -- at which point I'm sure someone will bill them $50 to say "just uninstall the damn app".
It's not anonymous enough that you can't catch people under certain circumstances. I work at a school where the app made its rounds one day and by the next morning there were threats of shootings at the school.
Kid was caught, went to juvie, and was expelled from school. Happened at several other schools in the area too, so there is a way to track it in at least some instances.
It seems extreme since it was just a kid goofing around, but with things the way they are these days every threat is taken seriously. And with a threat if this type it is immediately out of the hands of the school and dealt with by law enforcement.
Did some precious perfect snowflake get his wittle feelers hurt? Maybe it's time to grow up. Has the new generation somehow lost the natural skepticism towards anonymous rumors? Somehow I doubt it.
Yes. And they've been teaching kids in the last 15-ish years that "thin skinned" is the only way to be. Don't stand up to bullies, don't defend yourself, let the authorities handle it for you. Oh and of course if you do stand up to defend yourself, it's all your fault automatically no matter what. Because "zero tolerance."
Om, nomnomnom...
So someone anonymously said something. It's not like that's never been done before. It's not like that's a new issue in society. Haven't we come up with better ways to deal with this by now?
For instance, I can post anonymously right now on this very platform. How is that wrong?
If schools didn't act so stupidly they wouldn't have to be funded by corporations.
But the problem with Chicago is the causes of violent crime are fairly obvious and relatively easily remedied, but local politics are so horrible the governments in almost total gridlock. Combine that with rampant corruption, that's willful and obvious and you have a real problem.
Good luck eliminating every piece of bad behavior the kids can come up with. And good luck to the hothouse flowers when they are pushed out into the real world. This belief that it is a good idea to punish everyone because there are a few bad apples is one of the many things I hated about school, and continue to hate about people who want to apply it everywhere else.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
No, all of those things I listed are things that potentially require investigation (by the school admin or even by the police), not "hurt feelings." The fact that rumors of rapes and assaults (that you yourself acknowledge are often true) were ignored in your school is not something to be proud of. "Grow up."
Phones do have something to do with it - these systems allow for easier and stronger anonymity, and make it possible to spread such rumors faster and wider. They are powerful tools - and like any tool can be used for good or evil. But yes, it does tie into the larger issue of how to deal with rumors, threats, and bullying among children. As I stated earlier there is plenty of room for debate on how to deal with this stuff.
Maybe that's the problem. The schools don't like evidence that bullying is going on there.
Yeah, it's complete insanity.
We are working on raising the second generation of "learned helplessness" at this point.
Try going to a PTA meeting and watching a 40 or 50 year old parent try to talk to a 21 year old mother who was taught never to defend, never to stand up, and never to admit that good people can make terrible mistakes. She's literally incapable of common sense, and the older generation is literally incapable of reaching her.
"Zero tolerance" is killing our whole culture, one child at a time.
The rumours weren't transmitted more or less instantly all over town, and it had to be done by voice (face-to-face), written note, or landline telephone, all three of which communication methods were much more likely to be overheard or intercepted by parents/teachers.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
But the problem with Chicago is the causes of violent crime are fairly obvious and relatively easily remedied, ....
What are these obvious causes and how can they be easily remedied?
(||) Nehmo (||)
The whole point of this app is that it's location-based - it connects you to people in the immediate vicinity. So presumably yes, most of this is happening on school property during school hours. On the other hand, that should make it fairly simple for Yik Yak to use geofencing to disable it on school grounds if a school makes a complaint (from what I gather, this is what they're working on right now).
When it comes to schools, and particularly the "How dare you accuse my little angel" parents, you need to do a hell of a lot more than "determine" which student sent it.
Maybe in some cases of litigiously prone parents that would be the response. But most school administrations in America persecute individual students at whim, without much to justify their actions. Moreover, in this case we're dealing with young (at most high school age) kids who would quickly crumble upon confrontation.
(||) Nehmo (||)
There's nothing particularly "techy" about kids starting rumors. And removing one messaging app is certainly not going to stop bullying at schools.
It's just a symptom, with dozens of core issues that should be treated instead. From better parenting, to accountability, to a better teacher:student ratio ... plenty of ways to address the problem. Deleting an app really isn't one of them, be it from an single student or an entire school.
This signature is false.
As an adult, if your neighbor makes a threat to you, do you go over to his house one afternoon and beat the shit out of him with a crowbar to "stand up for yourself"? No. You report his threats to the police.
I think most people would just sell their houses and move. If you have enough evidence to put some wacko behind bars then maybe it is worth going to the police, but otherwise they're going to show up, talk to the guy, reveal that you called them in, and then leave. It isn't like they can arrest somebody because somebody claimed that they were threatened by them.
To some extent this is why gentrification exists in the first place. People move to expensive neighborhoods because creepy people usually can't hold down a decent job long enough to live there. So, they terrorize poor people instead.
No, I wouldn't break into the creep's house at night and smash their head in with a crowbar either. That just ends badly for you, since the police will actually take action in that case. If they smash your head in they'll do something about that as well, but most people would prefer not to wait for that to happen.
And people wonder why voters push for "stand your ground" laws...
I think most people would just sell their houses and move
And this is exactly why bullying works in schools but not so much in the real world. People are unwilling to pull their kid out of the most convenient school, and schools don't want to lose students because schools are paid based on attendance.
But having empty houses is bad for the whole neighborhood, so wacko-threats-neighbor is forced to cut it out or leave.
Passing a note around the school is only traceable if someone knows who wrote the original note, and someone can recognise my handwriting. Messages posted via a cellphone are a lot easier to trace.
gossip was fun, but no one really took it seriously
I remember taking it seriously --- as the victim of harassment and I remember others being hurt.
Did some precious perfect snowflake get his wittle feelers hurt?
This is the language of harassment --- belittling the victim --- and I have never heard it used in any other way.
no one really took it seriously (and in my school, most of the rumors were true).
So SOMEONE took them seriously. Gullible child that you were.
"'The problem, as you might imagine, is that the anonymity is empowering certain individuals to post comments about others that are hurtful, harassing and sometimes quite disturbing,'
I'd rather have this happen than have the police state alternative. Kids need to learn to deal with bullying on their own terms and today's PC society won't allow it. I think most of the real damage from bullying comes from politically correct policy and faculty, who make it nearly impossible for the underdog kids to hash it out with their peers without the threat of all kinds of imposed 'consequences'. It doesn't take much to set off these PC types, so the arena is quite limited indeed. No wonder kids are encouraged to bottle it up these days, and then explode years later in a columbine.
I don't see why yikyak or any business should shut down just because schools complain.. Since when do schools have (or should have) any authority outside their walls? This is more of that left wing blame-chain game they play, where they get to shout 'goose' when their target is tapped on the head. The proof of the fallacy is that their argument could be used to target any provider of two way communication, or anyone who funds them.. or... It's just a question of how far up the chain their target is.
Armed criminals who know that lawful victims must be unarmed. Allow lawful citizens to start packing.
It will be the problem of the creators when it is discovered or even alleged that drug dealers, money launderers, prisoners, gang leaders are using this systems for communication.
If you check the US federal communication laws, you'll find that any provider of a communications system must be able to provide call and communication logs upon request from law enforcement agences, failure to do so can lead to prosecution.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
The second link I gave says the number is 18.5 per 100/k from 2012, so I'm going to need some citations for that.
What about all the low-murder-rate cities where guns are banned? Seems it might not actually be so obvious at all once you switch from partisan sound bites to statistics...
When are causes of violent crime not obvious? It's not like people dying from being shot in Juarez mexico is too mysterious. "Relatively easily remedied?" How? Getting rid of all the guns and knives? Making everyone rich? Installing a morality-enforcing chip on everyone? Nuking the city?
Sorry grandpa, you remembered something right, but you forgot the details. That is for telephone calls. For internet communications, you only have to provide the logs you do have, on request. You do not have to have those logs. But as we know, for example from lavabit, if you don't have logs and the law enforcement agency is high enough on the food chain, they might get a warrant that requires you to give them access to your service instead.
Did some precious perfect snowflake get his wittle feelers hurt?
You must be one of those sadistic psychotic narcissists I read about on slashdot!
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Yup, for the most part most of the folks who get made fun of in school just arrange their lives in adulthood so that the folks who made fun of them aren't around any longer. They might run into each other at work, but the workplace isn't going to tolerate nonsense because it costs them money, and if the "jock manager" gives the "nerd producer" too much grief the company will probably figure out which it needs more. The bullies who make it to the executive level aren't bothered with pestering the help - they're too busy flying to golf outings.
Reporting threats and assaults to the authorities is standing up for yourself.
I totally agree. The "thin-skinned" response is to "just ignore" it. Which really means, do nothing at all to stop it or stand up for yourself. Just go cower in the corner when you're threatened.
Standing up for yourself by reporting it takes real courage. It takes being thick-skinned enough to know that it might get worse, before it gets better, but that you're being a part of creating positive change, and changing the bully culture.
they're going to show up, talk to the guy, reveal that you called them in, and then leave.
That is why it is effective. You've shown them that it is officially recorded that they made a threat. If they act on it, they'll get caught. And, you're not intimidated; further, you're going to Do The Right Thing. It certainly isn't going to make them like you. But in the US, this really IS how people usually respond to threats from neighbors. Your idea that people actually freakin' sell their home to escape threats is absurd. Most people who "own" their home have a mortgage, usually with terms that include penalties if they sell at the wrong time, and "can't" simply sell and move. Further, selling and moving is epitome of being successfully bullied. Most people are not that easy to run out of town.
If they're waiting around skulking behind corners waiting until nobody is looking, you can spot them "up to no good" before they even post it. And if they don't skulk around, they won't be anonymous. So, no, it is not actually the same thing at all.
Slippery slopes are always lies. In the real world, you're not constantly clinging to the side of a cliff where if you move an inch in either direction, you slide all the way to the most extreme possible position, like banning chalk.
And if the message is offensive enough, an administrator might even put out a call on the PA for teachers to pick up line 2, and tell them all to keep an eye out for a student with chalk-covered hands.
What good is any app that can be so easily crippled in such a fashion? Anonymous is a useless gesture here. Then again, untraceable communication is very elusive in every medium developed so far. Need more ad hoc networking outside the ISP and their wire
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'm afraid Wrigley Field is cursed...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It really depends on the nature of the bully.
If they come across as being tough but rational, then calling the police will probably have the effect you describe.
If they come across as being nuts, then calling the police might get you shot the next night. Sure, the police will know who did it, but nutcases aren't always the best appliers of logic.
I know somebody who lived near somebody who was seriously nuts, and it was really frustrating for them. They just tried to stay out of it, and capture video evidence of anything too crazy. I think the guy finally managed to get his house condemned which got him out of the neighborhood. Either that or he managed to do something to get himself arrested. I do remember a story of him stopping by my friend's house and mentioning the medications he was given when the police hauled him to the asylum which had to let him go after a day. He was asking if my friend could feel the energy waves.
In this case no harm came to anybody (though when his alarm went off due to smoke detection the firemen who entered the house didn't appreciate the booby traps they found.
It has certainly seemed to have - how many attempted massacres have been stopped because somebody in the audience shot the attacker before they could do much damage? I know there was at least one just in in the wake of the Colorado "batman shooting", but you never hear about them because they a couple people getting shot doesn't rank up there like a massacre.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Eliminate the black market (legalize - it's the only way) to take the big money out of violence.
Equalize gun ownership between criminals and law-abiding citizens (if you can't realistically get rid of them, make sure anyone could be packing)
Proceed from there if your violence issue are still excessive.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Okay, so you're obviously convinced that there are magic bullets out there for any issue, so I'm not going to try telling you there aren't, but what about that is supposed to be easy to remedy? I don't think political gridlock in Chicago is what keeps Chicago from eliminating the black market, legalizing... everything?... and giving out a whole lot of guns. I think that goes well into "Most sane people would object to doing that."
Because that has worked out so well in american schools, malls, and movie theatres.
Funny how most of those are "gun free zones", too.
If they are not in USA, then too many other variables are at play to make a conclusive statement. USA is very much an outlier among Western countries on so many things.
If they are in USA, can you name them?
More than 15; at least 35. Of course, "let the authorities handle it for you" was a lie; the authorities would ignore you, punish you, or punish both parties if you did complain to them. Phrases like "it takes two to fight" were their mantra... but if you actually didn't fight back and just got beat up, they'd punish you for fighting anyway.
> "Most sane people would object to doing that."
Right, because alcohol prohibition worked *so* well that we decided we need to try it again with all other recreational drugs. Trying to eliminate a voluntary public health problem through the legal system is an *extremely* stupid approach, especially when the (un?)intended consequences carry such a massive price tag, both financially and in terms of social degradation.
As for guns - this country was built on the premise that citizens could be trusted to own weapons responsibly - keep guns out of bars and honest citizens will very rarely use them against each other. Meanwhile if you permit concealed carry it's been repeatedly shown that criminal activity falls dramatically - nobody want to risk mugging a trained marksman. Now if you can get guns out of the hands of criminals that's an even better solution, but *far* more difficult to realistically implement.
And no, it's not a magic bullet, but until you at least stop doing the things that are actively creating the bulk of the problem I've got very little sympathy for your inability to implement other fixes. So what if revoking prohibition is only an 80% solution? You've just solved 80% of the problem while simultaneously drastically reducing your expenditures, even if you decide to provide free methadone, etc. clinics for addicts with some of the savings.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You need it installed to receive communications, don't you? If you're hurt by what you see, why not uninstall it?
Twinstiq, game news
Maybe I'm becoming an old fuddy-duddy, but I'm having trouble seeing what use this app is over a regular IM or texting session, unless you're toothing (which wasn't even a real thing).
People don't want to talk to random strangers nowadays, they want to talk to their friends, regardless of how far away they are. That makes the question of who's around you kinda inconsequential. I thought it had already been well-established people didn't want random folks to be able to message them. That's why every proprietary IM network makes people ask for authorization to add someone to their buddy lists now (I remember when AIM still didn't) and have controls to only allow messages from people on their buddy lists.
Just like the original sarcastic replier, I have to wonder why this bullied person doesn't just stop using the app and chat with their friends on some other platform they are all likely already a part of.
If you report words to the police, then you despise freedom of speech.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Armed criminals who know that lawful victims must be unarmed. Allow lawful citizens to start packing.
Armed criminals who know that lawful victims must be unarmed. Allow lawful citizens to start packing.
How does the "armed criminal" know that the victim is "lawful"?
You appear to be saying that the possibility of someone carrying an weapon, which is unseen, will deter someone else from pointing a gun at that someone. Is that correct?
Also, the concept of "criminal" and "lawful citizen" (to use your terms) is in the mind of the beholder. Most people who point a gun feel they have a perfect right to do so. Other people after the fact make judgements about who is "criminal". Now, a guy robbing a Quick Trip usually knows he is breaking the law, but the guy, with his/her view of the circumstances, feels justified in doing so.
Right and Wrong easily get confused. If the store ripped-off the guy once, can he point a gun to even the score? And is robbing a dope dealer against the law? Is throwing popcorn at you an act meriting lethal retaliation? Your armchair-later opinion of who is right isn't necessarily what was in the mind of the person pulling the trigger.
(||) Nehmo (||)
I'm all for ending prohibition but lets not oversell it by claiming it will make a big difference to the level of gun violence in the US. Mexico maybe, maybe not, the existing Mexican cartels / US gangs will have to find something else to do and they are likely to look for something with a high ROI that their organization is already good at, kidnapping, extortion, protection racket, maybe a Mexican based resurgence in Caribbean piracy. I say they would need "something else to do because no good would come from allowing the big boys to survive by "turning legit", that simply opens the doors to legitimate political power for them.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Congratulations, you people are whiny and no better than the 'for the children' crowd. Toughen up, morons.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Public schools are an arm of government. Here we have an arm of government restricting communications again. Freedom of speech is taking one heck of a beating. Kids to tease each other. They always have and always will. Some brittle children fold up like a worm on a hot sidewalk if they get teased or bullied. I doubt that we can change that. Other kids toughen up a bit and the attempts to tease or bully them don't work. Although it is a lousy method the tease and bully routine is an attempt to force others to come closer to the standards of the group. As a group the kids do have control of the bullies if the parents and teachers back off a bit. The playground bully can rapidly be taught a quick lesson if half a dozen weaker kids band together and beat a little humility into the bully. Interference by adults often leads into even more intrusions into the world of kids. The normal joys and discoveries of childhood can be stolen by an overly protective environment,
I think the argument goes more along like this
If I am in a place where I know someone MIGHT be packing heat, I MIGHT be less likely to shoot up the place. The argument makes sense when you look at the fact that damn near all mass murders happen in gun free zones when we are speaking about the USA
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
and here is why reporting it to the authorities doesnt always work
When I was in college, I had a laptop stolen from me, It wasnt a cheep laptop either, it was top of the line in 2002 and cost me somewhere around 3 grand. I knew who stole it from me, I knew where it was, I had witnesses tell the cops they saw him steal it. I reported it to them and I never heard anything back, they never went to the spot where I told them it was so I eventually took things into my own hands, got my laptop back, and perhaps some extra, you know for damages, and the kid never fucked with me again.
The problem is that people dont know when to use which action, there are times when going to the cops is the right thing, there are other times where you have to handle it yourself, I agree with the OP that we have been taught to stand down especially our men are being taught that its wrong to be a man
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
thats not how things worked in my school. If you were bullied and told on them, chances are you would be seeing them after school and it wouldnt be fun. If you stood up to them off the bat, they pretty much left you alone and went after weaker students
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
When the bugs coming, nuking it from orbit is about the only thing you can do.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
You have to stand up to a bully. The "don't sue us" mentality schools have developed have turned our kids into pussies and allowing bullies to roam freely.
Back in grade school I was on the bowling team and there was this one kid there who thought it was funny to make fun of me because I was Polish. Dumb pollok, polish jokes, talking down to me, etc. It was constant. One day I had enough and I punched that little dick right in his face knocking him over. He started to cry and my mother was there that day and she ran over as well as the kids father. So what does the kids father tell me? Why that he was going to have his older son beat me up (typical Howard Beach guido douche)! What a fantastic thing to tell a 10 year old. Well my mother EXPLODED on this dude. She made damn sure everyone heard what he said to me and that he was a coward and should be ashamed of himself and his sons shitty behaviour. The big coward then apologized and walked off with his son. After that I never heard a peep from that little brat.
Dont sit there and take it, they will never leave you alone. You always hear people say "violence isnt the answer". I will tell you this: some people only get the message after they get their clock cleaned. First use words, bite back at them. If that doesn't work then let them know, with your fist.
The whole point of this app is that it's location-based - it connects you to people in the immediate vicinity.
So it's like walking up to them and talking, except with a burka covering your face so that you remain anonymous? The app describes itself as a "social wall", but it doesn't seem very social.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Simply not true. Kids these days are better equipped to deal with bullying than they used to be because schools now talk openly about it and how to deal with it. In the past the biggest problem was that children had no way to deal with the problem, short of getting into fights or other kinds of escalation.
Standing up to bullies rarely works. They rely on the fact that they have power over their victim, due to physical size or having allies to back them up. It's just a fantasy that victims enjoy, imagining their revenge. Better to deal with it in a mature way, and to have the mental resources to cope with it rather than just build up anger and frustration until you eventually lash out at someone.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'm objecting to the simplistic approach you're advocating. Prohibition of alchohol didn't fail because prohibition ALWAYS fails. Legalizing EVERYTHING sold on the black market is an absurd stance. Even legalizing all drugs is probably unjustified. Even with Portugal's example, saying it will work everywhere is not very sound.
I'd like to see a citation for concealed carry reducing crime. I'm not saying that skeptically, I just haven't seen any studies on it because I haven't looked.
My main point though is Charliemopps suggestion that it would be easy to eliminate these problems is nonsense: the voters would oppose it, it's not just political gridlock.
I don't know why you single out the last 15 years, that is what I remember of my early school years forty years ago. Except the reactions were more restrained. When I accidentally jabbed a bully in the eye when defending myself, I merely got a suspension instead of a visit to the local police station. Then the admins backed down when my dad went to the school and read them the riot act. Frankly the admins backing down only increased my contempt for them.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Belittling in general is a bad thing. I do think I understand the parent's point, though, at least to a degree. I was bullied quite a bit in my early years, until I learned how to deal with it. Bullies pick their victims like lions do, they single out the weak and vulnerable. Once I stopped being those things, the bullying went away. Or at least, I stopped acting weak and vulnerable, which deprived them of their entertainment. Yes bullying and malicious harassment are foul things and should not happen. But if you are a soft target, SOMETHING will always happen to flatten you. Even if you survive to adulthood, work colleagues or salesmen or whoever will just walk all over you. I'm sorry the world is that way, feel free to blame the Creator.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Well, lets ask a question: What proportion of gun violence is related to the drug trade? I would guess a rather high percentage, especially if you include little punks that get a gun to defend themselves while on their less-than-minimum-wage drug-dealing job, and then like to wave it around whenever they get into a pissing competition. That's a recipe for unpleasantness.
And that percentage virtually disappears if you eliminate the black market. Sure, it may take a while - punks may be attached to their boomsticks, but the next generation will have no promise of easy money with the associated bling and bitches dangled in front of them to draw them into the culture.
Organized crime will of course not disappear - but it will be deprived of its primary revenue stream (IIRC Mexican cartels are estimated to get over 60% of their total income from the Marijuana trade, which is the *least* profitable drug by volume), and fade back into the basics of extortion and political manipulation, just as when alcohol prohibition was lifted. As for intentionally preventing them from "going legit"... why exactly? They already have plenty of legit businesses where there's enough profit to be made - the only special thing about the black market is the massive inflation of profits. Organized crime is already interwoven with politics pretty much everywhere in the world, the existing legal trade routes are far more profitable than the black-market alternatives, and if the small fry want to stay involved with drug production at 1/10 or less of the profit, where's the harm? *They* generally aren't the ones shooting civilians, it's the distribution networks that are highly profitable and violent. The same networks that will be completely obsoleted by being able to put your cargo in a shipping container with an honest inventory list and ship it anywhere in the world at a tiny fraction of the price.
As for piracy and kidnapping - with a functioning police force those are actually fairly simple to deal with - they by definition must draw attention to themselves to be profitable, and it's easy to shoot the guy standing under a spotlight.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Name one instance, just one, where prohibition succeeded. Now list all the other cases you thought of where it failed. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons, how the %$#@! do we imagine we can keep them off the streets?
I'm afraid I can't think of a specific citation for the concealed carry thing, but I have seen several studies across multiple demographics, and it appears to be a fairly consistent pattern: Violent crime falls when concealed-carry is passed, and climbs where it is revoked. And it makes sense when you think about it - you're not gonna mug just any schmuck who might have $20 if there's a middling chance they're packing, your life is worth more than that.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
One nice thing in my school (more than 15 years ago) was that you'd get the "takes two to fight" nonsense only if the pattern hadn't yet emerged for that particular bully. The admins at my schools weren't completely stupid, and weren't handcuffed by "zero tolerance".
I got in one fight at each new school I went to -- winning the fight was not in any way required to remove yourself from the target list for bullies -- and only once was I suspended. That case was very early in the school year.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Standing up to bullies has been 100% effective in my life. No, revenge and passive-aggressive nonsense doesn't work at all. The first time at any new school a bully tried to intimidate me or shove me around, I started a fight right there. My track record for winning those fight was poor, but that's not important. Bullies are taking the easy path as they see it, and you just have to show you're not on that path.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The fact that rumors of rapes and assaults (that you yourself acknowledge are often true) were ignored in your school is not something to be proud of.
The weren't ignored, they were simply treated with appropriate skepticism by the students. Gossip was entertaining; not anything more. The school admins did look into anything substantive, but they also knew people like to BS and threaten as a way to blow off steam - real violence wasn't preceded by threats!
these systems allow for easier and stronger anonymity, and make it possible to spread such rumors faster and wider
Oh, what bullshit. Gossip spreads at the speed of sound anyway, and you never learn the origin.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Ahh, the cult of the victim. "Oooh, look at me, I'm special, I'm a victim and so should have special privileges". Fuck that noise. If you're the victim of institutional oppression, such as laws or policies (official or otherwise) that discriminate against your race, that's one thing - the system needs to change, and it will take more than you to do it. But if the only damage is "hurt feelings", then, seriously, grow up.
Yes, it hurts. Welcome to adulthood. Life is a mixed bag. If you do something productive with your life as an adult you'll find insults childish and laughable. Our failure as a society is preventing teenagers from doing just that, in the name of "protecting" them.
The defense against "hurt feelings" isn't cocooning kids from even insults! It's true self-confidence that comes from actually participating in the real world. Getting that first job, earning your own way, to some small degree. Finding your place.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Certainly having trained professionals on hand is the most effective choice - but they're not a realistic option to stop somebody interested in doing as much damage as possible - by the time they've arrived on the scene the shooter is probably out of bullets. Of course we could put professionals everywhere, at great expense. But we're already seeing a chilling trend towards a police state in this country, so I cannot in good conscience suggest such a course of action for us.
An alternative is well trained private individuals - after all the goal is to have competent, responsible marksmen on hand in an emergency - putting them on the payroll doesn't actually change their effectiveness. There's no reason we couldn't make a responsible gun use training regime mandatory for concealed-carry permits*, something along the line of police firearm training where the risk of collateral damage is an important consideration. Make sure gun owners are repeatedly drilled with basic operating safety and situational judgement, and maintain decent marksmanship skill and a realistic idea of exactly how accurate a shot they are. As an added benefit they are likely to be more cautious since they know full well they may be held legally liable for their actions, unlike a police officer who has layers of legal and cultural protections allowing them to act with near-impunity.
* I'm singling out concealed carry simply to avoid running into any possible constitutional issues with restricting broader gun ownership. Given the general social stigma attached to openly carrying a firearm in the US I think it's probably at least an 80% solution.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I think the argument goes...when you look at the fact that damn near all mass murders happen in gun free zones when we are speaking about the USA
Cite please. Or please list the "near all mass murders" you are referring to. Your statement (about nearly all mass murders happening in gun free zones) is definitely not true. Tucson is not a gun free zone and a legally owned gun did the damage there. The ex cop doing the Wesley Chapel, Florida theater shooting had a legal gun too. Where did you get your "fact"?
(||) Nehmo (||)
John Lott Jr., a former economist at Yale University Law School and noted gun rights activist, also has tracked the matter. In 2000, he published a report along with William M. Landes of the University of Chicago Law School, which analyzed mass killings from 1977-99. The study, “Multiple Victim Public Shootings,” determined that each incident in that period took place in a “gun-free zone.” In the years since, Lott has continued to track mass shooting events and local gun laws. He has published many on his blog, as well as in commentaries for Fox News, among other media outlets. And he has used his findings to update his books, “More Guns, Less Crime” and “The Bias Against Guns.” Once again, Lott’s findings show that each mass shooting, except the Giffords incident, took place in “gun-free zones.” “Killers go where victims can’t defend themselves,” Lott wrote last week in an email to The Telegraph, using this year’s Aurora movie theater shooting as an example. “Out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. The suspect didn’t go to the closest nor the largest, but to the one that banned self-defense. Time after time, the story is the same.” On the whole, Lott’s colleagues – both in the media and academia – don’t dispute his findings. “I suspect that most places that mass public shootings could logically occur are ‘gun-free zones’ either determined by the government (schools) or by private businesses and institutions,” David Hemenway, director of the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University, wrote in an email.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
That qualifies as a cite, perhaps, but hardly one supporting your position. It's an article reporting (and rebutting) admittedly biased John Lott Jr's findings, and after noting the major exception that I previously cited, the article itself identifies another situation (International House of Pancakes restaurant in Carson City, Nevada) where he is shown to be incorrect. Furthermore, the article notes how broad Lott's definition of "gun free zone" is, and it mentions the difficulty in determining if a location fits the gun-free-zone description.
Finally, you selectively quoted your source apparently thinking a casual reader wouldn't click & read. You quoted "On the whole...don’t dispute his findings" but failed to also quote the real meaning of the section "But they do debate Lott’s conclusions..."
' Daniel Webster, director of Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University. “The shooters in these instances didn’t say, ‘Hey, I’ll find a gun-free zone where I can shoot a lot of people.’ No, they went to a place for reasons wholly unrelated to gun-free zones.”'
(||) Nehmo (||)
The prohibition of murder seems to be better than the alternative. We could go back and forth with arguments about what constitutes a scotsman, but my point was merely that absolute statements like "prohibition will ALWAYS fail" are unfounded.
As for the concealed carry, it's a valid hypothesis, no doubt, but proof is needed. If most violent criminals don't think about consequences such as "does this guy have a gun" then the experiment is going to fail and with a lot of dead bodies. Before concluding either way, we'd need good data. Which again, I'm not suggesting it wouldn't, I believe there is data out there that supports the idea. Just that I don't want to find it right now.
Prohibition generally refers fairly specifically to the banning of the recreational consumption of certain substances, other uses generally use the word form "prohibiting". So you're talking about a victimless act that is generally banned either for fear of broader social damage - alcohol's effect on self-control and "morality" being a really obvious example here. Or because it's a convenient way to target certain sub-populations for harassment, or is financially convenient for large actors - marijuana being the obvious candidate here as, at the time of prohibition, it was primarily popular among lower class "colored people", especially Mexicans, due in part to it's low cost (it's a weed - even on the black market it's still cheaper than alcohol) and it's cousin hemp was a major competitor to both the pharmaceutical and lumber industries - bigots and big business allied to make a massive push for prohibition on that one.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.