Slashdot Mirror
Student Arrested For Posting Zombie-Killing AR Game Clip Filmed at His High School (yahoo.com)
18-year-old high school student Sean Small was arrested in Indiana on Tuesday and charged with a misdemeanor for posting a videogame clip to social media. An anonymous reader quotes Yahoo Lifestyle:
The clip in question is Sean playing The Walking Dead: Our World, which is an augmented reality game that animates characters into a real-world setting. In this case, players kill zombies. Along with Sean's video he wrote, "Finally something better than Pokemon Go," which is also an augmented reality game....
Sean, who is a member of the Indiana National Guard, pleaded not guilty to an intimidation charge. He was released on $1,000, and his school expulsion hearing is set for next week. The video featured other students walking through the halls as Sean allegedly attempted to kill the zombies the game placed among them.
Realistic footage of shootings in the high school's hallways apparently alarmed the off-duty sheriff's deputy hired to work at the high school -- who then filed the misdemeanor intimidation charge with the county prosecutor.
Sean, who is a member of the Indiana National Guard, pleaded not guilty to an intimidation charge. He was released on $1,000, and his school expulsion hearing is set for next week. The video featured other students walking through the halls as Sean allegedly attempted to kill the zombies the game placed among them.
Realistic footage of shootings in the high school's hallways apparently alarmed the off-duty sheriff's deputy hired to work at the high school -- who then filed the misdemeanor intimidation charge with the county prosecutor.
There seems to be a grey area between fiction, and really harmful content. However the line between free speech, and being uncomfortable about something is very hard to draw.
I'm not sure how to objectively draw a boundary. However if the game is setup to allow real life footage to be amended with zombie shooting, this would have happened sooner or later.
How this finally plays out is actually important for the future boundaries of free speech.
And effective gun control is a must to remove the fear of shootings.
That's all.
From the summary, it doesn't sound to me, as though he thought he was pushing any boundaries. He was just playing a game, and thought he'd share it on social media. It wasn't a depiction of shooting students or civilians, only literal monsters. This genuinely sounds like an overreaction to me.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
Where everyone is scared and frightened from kids chewing their sandwich into the shape of a gun, or having an aspirin pill or a plastic knife.
The student is reported to be a member of the Indiana National Guard. Surely his intention is to show how he is able to protect fellow students from an influx of marauding zombies. That said, perhaps it is not wise to encourage the use of guns by students, and instead leave it to the authorities. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
You can be arrested because of speech, lots of kinds. An arrest (technically a detention) is not an infringement of rights. The rights are determined in court. The arrest facilitates the court.
Schools have a legal no-tolerance zone 1000 feet around them for various things, this is found to be Constitutional. From that, posting a video of violating that boundary is considered evidence of a potential crime.
That's probable cause for an arrest, though it's clear he didn't spend much if any time "in jail" over this, the school still has administrative punishments it has a right to give out for what it deems a violation/threat.
The system works? Thought crimes when provable require due investigation, not "the death penalty" or whatever happened in that sci-fi movie. Posting stuff on the internet can be dangerous to your freedom sometimes!
No kidding; your thoughts are a clear danger to any law-abiding citizen.
If you don't understand why, you need to seek help.
Looked at some footage now. It appears The Walking Dead in not even played with fake weapons. Oops.
C - the footgun of programming languages
I expect this to get worse as AR becomes more commonplace. Imagine if it were a laser-tag AR game where he was shooting other students!
People love their battle royale games, I expect there to shortly be location-based AR battle royale games; last survivor in your school wins!
I'm honestly surprised that ~20 years after Postal, Pico's World, GTA and Super Columbine Massacre RPG, people still get their panties in a twist about games about killing sprees. Perhaps satire was the only thing that spared those games, anything that's halfway serious gets shouted down even by gamers.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
http://www.sjgames.com/killer/
To play this game you move around with your smartphone and click buttons in the smartphone's screen to destroy pixels which make up zombie images.
Nobody in the school could have been intimidated by a student walking around waving his phone and clicking on it.
This is not even a thought crime. A thought crime would be "I so would like to kill this teacher who makes such difficult exams". Killing zombies in real life (yes, I realize how absurd that was) is no crime, thus phantasies about it are not thought crimes.
Obviously the administrators saw 'AR', 'clip' and 'high school' in the same sentence and freaked out.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
This student was rather silly to be playing simulated lethal combat games within school grounds. The student was even sillier to post records of the simulated lethal combat to online forums that could be viewed by the students of said school and by those responsible for the safety of the students of said school. The students could quite appropriately experience concern for their safety. The cultural context of the game is not going to be universally shared and so cannot be a guarantee that the other students will be able to recognise that this information does not present a threat to them. The guardians of the school, those responsible for the safety, physical, mental and emotional, of the students, need to take all of these factors into consideration when determining what action to take to enact appropriate protections. Given the difficulties of a rather out of control gun culture, a history of extremely lethal events occurring on a disturbingly regular basis in schools within the USA and the vast level of legislatively enforced uncertainty in the appropriate and effective management of students that may be engaging in activities that may cause others to feel threatened, charging this student with a misdemeanor seems to be the best option available. It might not work, It is probably an over reaction, but it still appears to be the best option to start with. The only way the USA will ever get any control over their uncontrolled gun culture and the corresponding over reactions to these types of silliness is for a referendum to modify the constitution to ameliorate the right to bare arms to a point where appropriate and effective control over the availability and lethality of generally available weapons can be imposed by elected representatives.
A wrongful arrest is absolutely an infringement of the arrestee's rights.
And this was a video of a game, not a video of a plausible violation of the school's rules on contraband (unless cell phones are contraband there).
A few guys in my high school did a similar thing with Doom in the 90s. Made a model of the school and some of the students, teachers etc as monsters and you could play a level killing them all. Nobody thought it was threatening. Don't see why this one would be?
Congratulations on supporting a police state?
Something ambiguous that, depending on additional facts, either could be probable cause for a crime or could be innocuous is not itself PC. Those additional facts have to be deduced to find PC. In this case, they weren't there.
I think the problem is, they arrested the guy and a lot of people are saying it's an overreaction, but if they hadn't done anything and he later shot up the school, some of those same people would have said, "Why didn't you do something when you found out he was playing that game?!"
Specifically, there's a tension created by the Republican rhetoric, and there's not a clear way to resolve it. On the one hand, they want to argue that the availability of guns isn't a contributing factor in school shootings, and that the responsibility falls entirely on law enforcement to identify and arrest the shooters. In other words, the problem isn't bad policy or bad guns, but bad people, and those people need to be locked up. On the other hand, they want to claim that they're libertarians who value freedom and personal choice, and that the government should not be involved in your life in any way unless you've committed a clear crime. The shooters often don't commit a clear crime until the actual shooting, even though they may have said or done some disturbing things. And so this sets up a conflict between the freedom to buy guns, and the freedom to think and speak as you choose.
The Republican resolution to these kinds of tensions often take the form of moral panic. They won't budge on gun control, and they don't want social reform or to provide mental health services, so they need to find some source of "evil". They imagine devil worshipers and perverts behind every corner, and look for reasons to blame social media or video games or sex or drugs or minorities. They deny the possibility that there could be problems with our own rules, culture, or way of life, and instead look for an assault from an outside evil, arguing that if that evil were simply removed or prohibited, everything would be fine.
They've already created the expectation that school shootings are caused by violent video games, so a violent AR game played in a school is guaranteed to cause concern. I wouldn't argue that arresting him was the right choice, but it makes sense that the social media post would cause some kind of response and intervention. I think if this had happened while I was in school, before school shootings were so common, it might have resulted in a visit to the principal's office, and maybe a couple of follow-ups with a school counselor to make sure everything was fine. If they want to be careful, maybe some kind of a mental evaluation is in order, or having police check to see whether he's known to have access to weapons.
What a dire threat. We wouldn't want zombies to feel uncomfortable but I don't understand why a dead zombie would be bothered by the threat of death. This type of action leads me to believe that our law makers are in fact zombies as they seem to never do anything and cause the population to pay them big bucks. That Trump guy might be a zombie. i always thought he was probably a space alien but maybe he really is a zombie. do other beings from other planets have alien zombies?
Few people seem to ask why we have school shootings, and the answer seems to be a combination of suicidal students, a hateful society, and massive media attention for the kid with a high score.
We're giving people a choice between a lifetime of wage-slavery and stupidity, which they rationalize as "adulthood," and going out in a blaze of glory where everyone knows your name, your manifesto, your favorite bands, etc.
Then there's the fact that public high schools are jails. Sort of like jobs. What kind of dystopic Utopia is this?
Alternative Right.
Just because someone explains how the existing law works to you (for the first time?) doesn't mean they've expressed support for that aspect of it
True. Here's a suggestion: Some users disclaim support for the law that they're explaining by prefacing such explanation with "Under current law" or similar. I, for one, have done this when explaining copyright, particularly some of the parts that I consider contrary to "the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Schools have [zero tolerance] policies because it relieves them from having to think. Aren't all the grown-ups at a school supposed to be capable of critical thinking?
School administrators are capable of critical thinking. The voters who elect the school board that hires school administrators, not so much.
You did not describe the law. You distorted your description in ways that are friendly to police.
A wrongful arrest is wrongful even if it is not proven so in court. One of many reasons that an arrest may be wrongful is if it performed without probable cause that an offense has been committed.
An ambiguous fact on its own is not PC. "Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed."
This was a video from a game, and a moment's reflection with even the slightest understanding of the medium would show that the student neither actually threatened anyone or had any intent to intimidate, meaning there was no probable cause the crime for which he was arrested even happened.
If you weren't so busy licking those jackboots you'd probably understand why you come across as supporting a police state.
Hahaha
Plenty of boys and girls get shot in school
EVERY DAY !
though the weapons used are words
so I advocate that kids stop bringing their mouths to school.
Death penalty for any kid that dares to speak in school.
answers to a teachers question should be written in triplicate, one for the teacher, one for the school, and one for the student.
there. solved that for ya, also stimulated the economy by using more paper. digital displays and records are not allowed, since they are too easily tampered with.
you silly chicken.
CAP === "mumbles"
The alternative is government control over speech, thoughts and subsequently guns. If the first two amendments fall, how quick will the others go?
If you can lock up anyone for having âoebad thoughtsâ like suicide or murder, then you can lock up pretty much the entire population. There is one clear answer to minimizing the carnage: stop glorifying the actors in the mainstream media.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
There is one clear answer to minimizing the carnage: stop glorifying the actors in the mainstream media.
And how are you going to stop it? There goes freedom of the press.
He filmed people without their consent and posted it online. That alone could break rules and laws, even seen as harassment if people objected and he did it anyway.
There are several problems with this theory. Firstly, in most countries, it is fine to film someone in a public place provided it is not for commercial gain. Secondly, he was not charged with this but with "intimidating behaviour" and lastly he is a kid and the law _should_ allow for a good deal of leeway when dealing with kids who do not always think through the consequences of their actions as much as an adult and may not be aware of some less-well-known laws.
I'm not sure how to objectively draw a boundary.
Well, since he was charged with intimidation a logical place to start is "was anyone intimidated?". Since the game appears to involve walking while staring intently at your phone screen and occasionally tapping it then, if this is intimidating, a LOT of people are going to be guilty.
Then we proceed to see whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. How else are farmers supposed to keep crows from stealing their corn?
"Your rights end where [WHITE] children's rights to not be shot begin."
Corrected that so our more conservative viewers will be on your side.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
Glory, glory hallelujah
teacher hit me with a ruler
shot her behind a door
with a loaded 44
now teaches stands no more
Went to the cemetery
went to the grave
instead of throwing flowers
we threw hand grenades
then we went to school
and said we really had it made
cause teacher stands no more.
No student was suspended.
No teacher was fired.
It never made the front page of the paper.
That year there were three school shootings.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
A wrongful arrest is absolutely an infringement of the arrestee's rights.
Gets wayy worse. If convictred, an Off Duty rent-a-cop, effectively ended this kids adult life, certainly if he intended to pursue one with the National Guard. Over what, a game? What ever happened to schools TEACHING kids rather then arresting them.
Good god we are so fucked.
a nra shirt or even a yellow pink squirt gun or a pop tart chewed into shape of a gun will get police called in most public schools ...this is the future you voted for
I shudder to think what they would have done provided he show up in his national guard uniform!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Schools have a legal no-tolerance zone 1000 feet around them for various things, this is found to be Constitutional. From that, posting a video of violating that boundary is considered evidence of a potential crime.
No tolerance to what? Playing computer games? Having a fucking brain?
His video violates what fucking boundary exactly?
If you never have to deal with bullies in life growing up then the school has failed at preparing you for life. Life is full of them, if you shelter kids when they're learning how to survive in life, they will grow up to be worthless and probably die young or end up in prison.
Don't shelter your children!! Teach them about life and its realitys! You wont be there to hold their hand every day of their life.
Came to post this. Left satisfied.
Small's supporters need to come to his trial and sit in the gallery in zombie costumes.
#UndeadLivesMatter
Have gnu, will travel.
... the line between free speech, and being uncomfortable about something is very hard to draw.
THAT line is not hard AT ALL. The right to free speech completely trumps any desire to be protected against discomforting ideas and images.
There is an explicit constitutional right to free speech. The Supreme Court recognizes that it constitutes a complete ban on government action to even have a "chilling effect" on it, and has incorporated it against the States and all their components and subdivisions, which includes police and the officers and employees of public schools.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
His act exceeded the cognitive abilities [of the relevant local "authorities "] to comprehend said act.
Indiana isn't a rich enough State to create a police state, the best they can hope for is to stomp on the rights of a few kids and maybe silence a few people who weren't sure if they wanted to speak, or not.
I think the problem is, they arrested the guy
So far, so good.
and a lot of people are saying
Who cares? Saying things is an absolute right. Arresting people is strongly regulated.
if they hadn't done anything and he later shot up the school, some of those same people would have said, "[blah blah blah]"
Who cares? Yeah, they might say things, they're people. Why do you perceive it is as a problem if their words contradict other words they said before? Who fucking cares? That doesn't impact their right to say it. Compare that to, if you're arresting people and you do it in contradiction of the laws that allow you to do it! That one is illegal.
Just for that, I'm going to buy a bump stock. I don't own a rifle that has a pistol grip, but fuck it, I'll buy a bump stock anyways. I don't use Instagram, but I'll create an account and post a nice selfie of me holding a bump stock.
Right, and you feel very strongly. But my point is, if they hadn't done anything and he shot up the school, you'd probably be saying, "Why didn't they do anything? These people should all lose their jobs over this!"
Maybe not literally you, but people who are right now making the same argument you are. And you can say, "Who cares what people say?" but I wouldn't want to be tried in the court of public opinion. I wouldn't want my fate decided by the political pressures brought to bear by sensationalized public outcry. I can understand how, in this case, arresting the kid might seem like "playing it safe".
From what I've heard of this story, I don't think it was the right call. But think I can understand how that call got made.
No, no, no, I wasn't talking about my feelies, I was talking about the realities of the situation.
It doesn't matter what my feelies are. This didn't happen because of feelies, it happened because of ignorance, and it will be corrected on that basis.
The story is about a person getting arrested, not about people's feelies. That person will later be exonerated, and the cop will be retrained, because it doesn't matter what anybody's feelies are.
It violates the boundary of respect for a policy of no guns on school property.
He took how many guns on to school property? Count them for me. Shit, double it.
Nope, still not seeing any.
The virtual aspect of the weapons should not allow them to be exempt from school guidelines or policy.
The hysterical fear of a mobile telephone would destroy any respect for such a policy. There were no weapons and that means no exemption is required.
This "virtually" violates the school policy and code of conduct. The Zombies are immaterial.
The weapons are immaterial as well. I can virtually murder you, rape your daughter, shit on your family dog and drop you an email containing a photograph of me laughing as I do it. I still haven't violated school fucking policy.
If non-existant weapons are treated with such fear and distress the kids are totally fucked if they ever encounter real ones.
Inform the public and vote with your wallet. You don't have to be oppressive to get a desired outcome.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Congratulations on not following simple explanations, the ad hominem attack was nice too.
You are apparently the one who cannot follow simple explanations. The AC admitted that the video was ambiguous, which means it is insufficient to establish probable cause. Without probable cause, there are no legitimate grounds for arrest or charging a crime.
If you want the police to arrest people and get charges filed when no crime was committed and there was no probable cause to believe the arrestee committed a crime, that is supporting a police state. It's not an ad hominem argument to accurately identify someone who does that.
Of course it would be OK. Why wouldn't it? Any prosecution based on that is basically enforcement of thought crime. "We think maybe he wanted to shoot up the school, so he needs to go to jail".
It violates the boundary of respect for a policy of no guns on school property.
By this logic, a teacher showing a historical ww2 video showing soldiers with guns also violates school policy. Hell, I'll bet some of the history textbooks have at least one or two pictures of soldiers with guns. The horror! They should all be burned.
By doing what, exactly? Not paying to get through their paywalls? If that's "voting with my wallet", then I'm already doing it.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
From the summary, it doesn't sound to me, as though he thought he was pushing any boundaries. He was just playing a game, and thought he'd share it on social media. It wasn't a depiction of shooting students or civilians, only literal monsters. This genuinely sounds like an overreaction to me.
It would be interesting to know if that is valid. He'd hardly be the first accused person to say that he had no idea he was doing anything wrong.
As long as there are no tits, its OK.
Have gnu, will travel.
You're missing the part where the guns existed within the virtual version of the school, which used live video footage of the actual school to blur the lines between the real and the virtual.
A WWII documentary, or other textbook documents do not occur in real-time within the that very school building. They are abstracted by history, and location, and context. In addition, there are lessons to be learned from history.
An Augmented Reality Video Game however, serves no intrisic purpose to the education of the student, and instead potentially desensitizes the student to the notion of carrying a gun on school property.
Furthermore, one thing leads to another. We need to have a clearly defined line so that "red flag" behavior is detectable. We need to keep from making it easy for students to carry out attacks. We need to keep them from being able to practice such things.
I say nip it in the bud. When I attending school, cell phone use was generally prohibited, and few kids had cell phones. There are rules for clothing, and so on and so forth. Lets make sure there are clear rules and clear punishments in place for playing "The Walking Dead" on school property. Such as being expelled...
The purpose is to make it easier to spot and get help for troubled kids. Cleary we have a problem with doing so already. Lets not bury those kids in another haystack. Lets not normalize certain behaviors or imagery. Certain things should be held with respect and dignity.
Lets not alienate people that seek escapist entertainment for reasons that may include societal rejection.
Lets certainly not ruin their future and give them a genuine grievance against 'normal' people.
Certain things should be held with respect and dignity.
So why are you seeking to remove this kid's dignity by refusing to respect his choice of entertainment?
Escapist entertainment is something to be enjoyed whilst away from school property. Particularly, anything that disrespects the school, or otherwise makes it harder for teachers and faculty to protect students by burying red flags in yet another haystack...
There are other games, and even non-"Augmented Reality" shooter games which the student can enjoy while on school property. A student will not be unduly inconvenienced by not being allowed to enjoy a very specific form of entertainment.
Finally, while on school property, a student is expected to adhere to a more rigorous standard of behavior suitable to that of the workplace. It would not be appropriate to go around an office building playing an augmented reality shooter, and therefore such behavior should not be condoned within the educational system.
Oh for fucks sake. Playing a computer game is not a fucking red fucking flag. Stop being a paranoid fucking idiot.
Playing a computer game does not disrespect the school. Playing a computer game does not make it harder for teachers to protect students.
Going on inane fucking witchhunts about computer games makes it harder to protect students, by wasting everybody's time and teaching kids that they're not respected and shouldn't expect justice from the system.
Finally, while on school property, a student is expected to adhere to a more rigorous standard of behavior suitable to that of the workplace
The places I work, people play computer games on the work computers. The companies provide gaming equipment in break rooms. People play games on their phones and their tablets when they're on a break.
Seems to me playing computer games is behaviour suitable in the workplace. Seems to me it's behaviour suitable at school too. Shit, I played computer games at school. Held the school's Chuckie Egg record; probably still do.
It would not be appropriate to go around an office building playing an augmented reality shooter
Bullshit.
Hell, my former boss in Texas used to have a rifle in his office. Multiple colleagues had firearms in their cars. And you're worried about a fucking computer game?
Grow the fuck up.
He trusts himself to be alone with Rosie and her 5 sisters....
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Just because someone explains how the existing law works to you (for the first time?) doesn't mean they've expressed support for that aspect of it, try to keep up with what is actually said please.
Yeah they were so sure of their statement they posted as AC, just like you.
PROVING that is trickier. You seem more intent on trying to prove you're an asshole out to smell my balls instead, I don't know why.
Look nobody can smell what you don't have you eunuch. If you had balls you wouldn't hide behind AC and talk from high upon your pedestal. The fact that your retort talks about another man sniffing your balls says far more about you than him. How much experience do you you have with crotch sniffing? WHY WOULD YOU EVEN SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT YOU ANONYMOUS BASTARD?!?!
Indiana isn't a rich enough State to create a police state, the best they can hope for is to stomp on the rights of a few kids and maybe silence a few people who weren't sure if they wanted to speak, or not.
If Indiana does not have a police state, then they are working on financing it:
https://ij.org/press-release/i...
What if it turns out the zombies are not actually an untapped source of natural wealth, but are actually impoverished by their condition, and already sold off everything of value?
What if the only things of value they have left are things they stole? Things they stole recently!
I don't doubt that Indiana has some politicians whose personal dream is to make their State rich enough to be a police state, or some other type of dystopia, but that's not the same thing as having a realistic plan to enact it.
Most of the wealth in Indiana is held by farmers. Farmers do not even pay their own way, they require tax breaks so that their workers, and people in other industries, can pay the taxes. The end result of that is that it doesn't matter what the State's plan is, they won't come up with lots of new money; their rich people don't pay, won't pay, and are the darlings of their local politics.
... if they hadn't done anything ... arrest the guy
Why is arresting the guy the only possible action here? Why not pull him into an administrator's office and have a conversation? Maybe suggest it's a bad idea and tell him not to do it again? Send him for evaluation if he seems dangerous? All of those things are "doing something". Calling the police in isn't the only choice.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
As I said:
I think if this had happened while I was in school, before school shootings were so common, it might have resulted in a visit to the principal's office, and maybe a couple of follow-ups with a school counselor to make sure everything was fine. If they want to be careful, maybe some kind of a mental evaluation is in order, or having police check to see whether he's known to have access to weapons.
Unless there's some other information we don't know, arresting him was the wrong move. There should have been some step to evaluate how dangerous he was, and only call the police if he's done something illegal.
My point wasn't to say that they were right to arrest him, but to say that society is fickle and stupid, and people are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
I started my post with the phrase, "I think the problem is..." The "problem" I was talking about was the overreaction of the administrators and law enforcement. However, part of the problem is the political pressures that our stupid fickle society puts on those administrators and law enforcement.
Sorry, I think I skimmed toward the end and missed that point. I do agree entirely about society's fickle demands for action, and expectation that officials should be able to see the future as clearly with foresight as the public will be able to see it with their hindsight.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Why do you assume it's "the same people" in both cases?
For that matter, why do you assume that pro-gun people are Republicans? It's certainly true that there are more Republicans like that, statistically speaking. But there are also plenty of Democrats who own guns, including "assault weapons" and such. And who believe that, indeed, the root cause of gun violence is precisely what you mentioned - lack of proper healthcare, high income inequality, low social mobility, poverty etc.
It's ironic that you mention a moral panic in this context, because the whole gun control debate is a moral panic right now - but on the left. It's gotten to the point where, in sufficiently "woke" circles, even just mentioning that you own a gun that's not a hunting rifle is enough to get branded "child murderer" - literally the same language as Repubs use wrt abortion (which, coincidentally, is an actual moral panic on the right). Any attempts to talk about the specifics of various proposals, and their flaws due to misunderstanding of how guns work, or how the existing regulation of them works, are shut down on emotions. The new term for this is "gunsplaining", which basically means disagreeing in any way, shape or form with MDA and Everytown talking points - for example, if you read an article that makes false claims about terminal ballistics to justify an AR-15 ban, and you try to challenge that, then you're "gunsplaining". Even using "inappropriate" terminology draws ire - e.g. in a conversation about silencers, I used the term "suppressor" once, and was immediately shouted down for "promoting NRA propaganda" - because, apparently, that term is "invented by the NRA".
All in all, it has been an eye opening experience. I've long been wondering how so many people on the right can be so hysterical about abortion for such a long time, to the point where it's impossible to hold a meaningful conversation with them. Now I can see the same close up on my side of the aisle, and, apparently, the trick is still the same old, and it still works wonderfully:
- Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions.
- Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases.
- Give only one side of the argument.
- Continuously criticize your opponents.
- Pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification.
That's a crime?!
CNN gets sufficient views to keep them up in the air, they're the biggest perpetrator of these things in the name of gun control. The problem is that people publishing and marketing school shootings (SJW and others on the left) accept the fact that by making this sacrifice they will eventually get the controls they want. The right doesn't really care because they are min-maxing their personal safety and liberty and accept the fact that by this sacrifice they will keep the freedoms they want.
In the end, the school shooting media circus is just a manifestation of the struggle over power. If you don't want that, as I said, inform people, especially lawmakers and tell people to boycott media that glorifies or publishes details on school shootings and keeps the story in the spotlight for weeks on end by endlessly having pointless debates over whether or not they can repeal the constitution. Vote with your feet/wallet: don't visit their websites or look at their channels.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Playing a computer game is not a red flag. A computer game which uses AR and guns in a school setting can be used as a recruiting or planning tool for a crime. Schools already have a problem with shooters. Parents and teachers are already on edge. A video game isn't something important to a student's life. There should be no loss of life on school property, ever. And to reflect that the situation is being taken seriously, and being given proper respect, even virtual simulations using "augmented reality" should not be allowed on school property.
Parents and teachers are already on edge.
That's because stupid fuckwits react to tiny innocent things like playing a computer game and panic, call the police, charge a poor teenager with a serious crime when all he was doing was playing a fucking mobile phone game.
to reflect that the situation is being taken seriously, and being given proper respect, even virtual simulations using "augmented reality" should not be allowed on school property
That's not proper fucking respect. That's creating a culture of fear while entirely fucking ignoring the factors that actually lead to school shootings.
How many school shooters ever played AR games? How many ever shot zombies in their school? How many shot up schools long before computer games even fucking existed?
Shit, you're more of a problem than kids playing computer games are. Your reaction and the actions against this poor kid are substantially more likely to lead to school shootings than a fucking AR mobile phone game.
"Hi, we just fucked your entire future because we're paranoid idiots that don't understand shit but feel free to alienate and drive you out of normal society, giving you nothing to lose and a lot of grievance against the people causing you this hell."
Good message. Keep on fucking preaching.