Slashdot Mirror
Blogger Stabbed To Death After Internet Abuse Seminar (theguardian.com)
A prominent Japanese blogger has been stabbed to death minutes after giving a seminar on how to resolve personal disputes on the internet. The Guardian reports: Media reports said Kenichiro Okamoto, better known by his blogger name Hagex, died on Sunday evening after reportedly being attacked by a man he had argued with online. The suspect, Hidemitsu Matsumoto, allegedly followed Okamoto into the toilets after he had ended his talk at a venue in the south-western city of Fukuoka.
Okamoto was stabbed several times before staggering out of the toilets after his assailant, who fled on a bicycle, according to the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper. Okamoto, who sustained stab wounds to the chest and neck, was taken to hospital where he was confirmed dead. His attacker reportedly handed himself in almost three hours after the attack.
Okamoto was stabbed several times before staggering out of the toilets after his assailant, who fled on a bicycle, according to the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper. Okamoto, who sustained stab wounds to the chest and neck, was taken to hospital where he was confirmed dead. His attacker reportedly handed himself in almost three hours after the attack.
stabbed to death minutes after giving a seminar on how to resolve personal disputes on the internet.
Not to be snarky here, but my first thought after reading this was "So I guess that's exactly NOT what you should do, huh?" (Sorry to be morbid.)
At least the guy turned himself in soon afterwards. But he bothered the guy online, even kept making new IDs to hassle the guy after the previous one was disabled.
What the hell is wrong with people? "Someone's wrong on the internet / in life and it's my duty / job / addiction to permanently correct them? Get over yourself and come up with a better argument. Make them come over to your side instead. Hell, maybe you'll even learn something yourself.
Winston Churchill: A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
So I guess we can safely assume that he wasn't as great at resolving internet arguments as he thought he was?
Because an argument that lead to one of the parties getting to pissed off they decided to find the other in meatspace so that could stab them to death can't have ended particularly well...
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
Relevant XKCD
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
My understanding is that the Japanese consider the risk of being caught of a crime to be pretty high, which it AFAIK is as their police isn't as overburdened as police is in many parts of the world, and you do get an unusually large amount of leniency if you do it. If you know you're almost definitely going to get caught, it's probably not worth it trying to run or cover your tracks.
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
There is also the case of the guy that flew from New Zealand to the US to attack teenage girl, and was shot.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor...
For your information, I give seminars on how to avoid crazy sex with multiple gorgeous women.
Hint hint...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Deceased made wrong assumption - that you could resolve arguments and reach understanding with all people. This is just not true.
Additionally, Internet is unlike person-to-person communication in a way that you don't screen your audience for sanity and you don't get non-verbal clues giving you an early warning that someone is about to blow the lid.
More so, once people made up their mind it is virtually impossible to change their mind with logic. People change their behavior and convictions due to pain (social or otherwise) and not due to being convinced by evidence and reason.
As such, the only rational approach to online and social media discourse is to act pseudonymously and acrimoniously.
That said, I have to wonder what drove his attacker to (a) kill him, then (b) turn himself in within a few hours (but not immediately)....
That's not uncommon, actually.
People do the crime out of high emotion, then a little reason kicks back in afterward and they realize their situation is hopeless and they will be hunted down anyway.
I actually know someone who did that (though he turned himself in in a couple of days, not hours).
...his opponent's technique was cutting edge.
Stop being a hack: any way you slice it, it's too soon for using a sharp wit to mock his death.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
That's because you've shifted the goalpost from "someone is out there to kill you" to "preventing violence".
You seem to be suggesting that because the average person isn't likely to be able to stop a carefully planned murder that, therefore, all of those people who DO defend themselves should just give up and let their attackers have their way.
No, I do not seem to be suggesting that. Learn how to read & understand texts!
Sounds like they need "sensible knife laws" in Japan....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Killing somebody in anger is only "easy' if you're a psychopath. It's hard to imagine a non-psychopath saying such a thing. Who's anger raises to the level of murderousness? That's serious mental illness - which is the real violence problem in society.
I'll tell you who does want to kill you though - Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Leopold II, and Hitler. They are empirically far more dangerous.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Killing somebody in anger is only "easy' if you're a psychopath. It's hard to imagine a non-psychopath saying such a thing. Who's anger raises to the level of murderousness? That's serious mental illness - which is the real violence problem in society.
I'll tell you who does want to kill you though - Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Leopold II, and Hitler. They are empirically far more dangerous.
Killing someone in anger *is* easy. That's a crime of passion, and it happens all the time, around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You don't have to be a psychopath, nor a sociopath for that, you only need to recognize that humans are prone to fits of extremes. In fact, being a psychopath is the absolute opposite of killing someone in anger. It's killing someone without feeling anything. I think I'm probably a psychopath; but I haven't killed enough people to tell.
I said all that to say this - human life is cheap. There are more of us every day. There haven't even been any significant wars or depopulation events in living memory to make us feel fragile as a species. There are plenty of people who can look around themselves and see that no one is particularly important. Taking a life is socially repugnant, but ultimately irrelevant.
If you've seen the movie "Punisher" or movies like it and thought, "Those men deserved to die," you're closer to the latter. If you refuse to watch it, or have seen it and thought, "He has no right to kill those men" you're closer to the former. In the context of this article, I treat everyone with respect - even people I hate, and it amazes me every time I see someone provoke another intentionally to rage - because you never know who might be ready to justify killing you - ranging from that blind rage crime of passion, to the coldly calculated, "I can make the world a little better for their absence."
When are you guys going to start a revolution with your pea-shooters? I heard that is why you need them: to protect us from a tyrannical government. So...when?
If it's ever necessary, it will happen the same way it did last time. Citizens with guns, mostly ex-military and led by ex-military, will take military armories on the first day of the war. Military bases are gun-free zones, after all. (Yes, really, a soldier can't even carry his own personal gun on base.)
Half the militia that fought the British troops in the Battles of Lexington and Concord were exactly the cliche - bunches of dumb, poorly trained hicks all related to one another. But half weren't, and they accomplished something.
If you don't know US history, it might surprise you that the war started when the governor sent troops to confiscate military-style weapons from the populace. Didn't work out well for him, in the end.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.