OK, how bad is this moral panic going to get?

[backscatter712]

Last edited Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:58 PM - Edit history (4)

Some people may find what I'm about to write to be somewhat insensitive. So let me just say that for me personally, the shooting in Aurora has hit closer to home than most of these sorts of tragedies - while I don't personally know anyone who was a direct victim of the shootings, I have friends who live in Aurora, close to that theater, and we had some panicked phone calls and conversations on Facebook where people were reassuring each other that they weren't there or one of the victims. So yes, I'm shocked by this tragedy, and I can't imagine what the victims and their friends and families are going through.

But I think this has to be said. One of the things I see over and over and over again is that when this kind of tragedy happens, people become scared, and thus they become mind-bogglingly stupid and authoritarian. The result is a moral panic.

And there have been plenty of moral panics in American History. Cracked has an article talking about some of the most ridiculous ones.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17040_the-6-most-insane-moral-panics-in-american-history.html

We've got the beginnings of a moral panic right now. Already, AMC has announced that they're banning costumes from their theaters.

Costumes!

Like I said, people afflicted by moral panic get amazingly stupid.

That is my worry. People get scared, and when they get scared, they get stupid, and they turn authoritarian, and this is when our liberties are in the most danger. Because of moral panics, the comic book industry suffered for decades under the Comic Code, people playing Dungeons and Dragons suffered years of harassment from fundies and even law enforcement.

EDIT: Some of you below made this excellent point - it's not just comic books and games - because of a moral panic after Pearl Harbor, our country sent Japanese Americans to internment camps. Because of America's worst moral panic, the response to 9/11, we went to a war based on a lie, we bought that lie because we were panicked and apeshit, and we killed hundreds of thousands of people. Not only that, we started torturing people and rationalizing it afterwards, we're using drones to blow people up by remote control without trial or any due process whatsoever, we started warrantlessly wiretapping phones and Internet, we started harassing, discriminating against and persecuting people because they're Muslims - just because they have the same religion as the 9/11 terrorists, and we're still harassing people at the airports - groping them, making them take off their shoes and pour out their drinks, suffer the indignities of standing in the pornoscanners, for what? Moral panic.

Are we safer? No. we're just less free.

[DURHAM D]

1. Really?

I am supposed to get all wound up and worried about comic books and games...

Really???????

[backscatter712]

2. I guess the First Amendment doesn't mean much to you...

And I might add that you could try taking a look at the worst moral panic in American History - our response to 9/11.

What did we do?

Oh yeah, we went to war, based on a lie, we bought the lie because we were in moral panic, we started torturing people, we violated civil rights, we started warrantless wiretaps, we started groping people, harassing and arresting people, using pornoscanners on people going through airports. We entered an era of paranoia and complete fucking stupid that we're still struggling to get out of.

So I'll say that it's quite a bit more than comic books and games. But the comic books and games are canaries in the coal mine.

[DURHAM D]

10. Nice insult - "First Amendment doesn't mean much to you..."

Apparently you feel the need to pound out an over-hyped moral lecture but I don't have a need to listen to you.

Have a good evening.

[backscatter712]

12. Bye.

[xchrom]

3. well, there is a rush to blame media, violent movies, games, etc

anything except the easy access to fire arms.

even this will get hammered -- but fewer guns - harder access to guns - makes it harder to commit these atrocities.

that's not moral.

[Edweird]

18. Right, because if Timothy McVeigh hadn't had access to guns, Oklahoma City would never have happened

[Denninmi]

4. Wouldn't rounding up Japanese Americans during WWII and putting them in concentration camps ...

... be an example of "moral panic"? Seems like it to me, kneejerk emotional reaction with no basis in reality.

[backscatter712]

6. EXACTLY!!!

We get stupid in moral panics, we become authoritarian in moral panics, and that's when we start doing shit like throwing people into camps.

Our response to 9/11 is another moral panic. See my post above.

[DontTreadOnMe]

5. This is not moral panic

There is a growing movement of people who have had enough with guns in this culture.

No other country is the world is obsessed with guns as the United States.

The 2nd Amendment says "well regulated".

I interpret that as guns should be taxed. Make them expensive. Not just a purchase tax, but a yearly ownership tax. Don't want to pay the tax.. sell your gun. Don't like gun taxes.. move to Somalia.

Are you a gun collector? Tough shit, your hobby just got more expensive.

[backscatter712]

8. You brought up guns, not me.

Last edited Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

I personally think we need some sensible regulation on guns - like requiring a license similar to a driver's license in order to possess or shoot them. That will never happen in this country, thanks to the NRA. You're preaching to the choir. But read some of my other posts in this thread to see why I am genuinely concerned.

[Mojorabbit]

27. Here are some recent polls

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/gun-control-polls-aurora-shooting_n_1690169.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2FPolitics+(Politics+on+The+Huffington+Post) and an interesting article on the subject. I do not believe only the wealthy should be able to own firearms.

[Posteritatis]

32. Then why are there threads ranting about how video games caused this here? (nt)

[turtlerescue1]

7. Would apathy be a better response?

[backscatter712]

9. Better than stupidity and authoritarianism. n/t

[Mojorabbit]

28. +1000 nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. You have a point

There is value in sending the message that we refuse to be terrorized.

[backscatter712]

13. Like Will McAvoy said in The Newsroom:

We didn't used to scare so easy.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. During WWII and the Cold War we had actual spys in this country

But we didn't freak out over it.

We certainly didn't hide under our beds. Nor did we set up our homes like a fortress and answer the door with a gun in our hand.

[flamingdem]

14. But there IS a problem, $ drives the sales of guns and hyperviolence in entertainment

It won't stop unless people join together and decide it doesn't work for us as a society.

Someone has to put on the breaks. People do not put on the brakes so easily, boundaries are needed.

[backscatter712]

15. I don't think it's that simple.

People have been proposing restrictions on comic books, role-playing games, violent movies, video games, cable news, guns, etc. etc. etc., and first, people aren't going to agree to such restrictions, and rightfully so because such restrictions infringe upon free speech; and second, I don't think that these incidents of violence are simply because of guns or violent entertainment.

Come from where we are - a society where guns are a part of our culture, and people like it that way; and a society where we have violent entertainment, and people like it that way. How are you going to make a change that results in fewer tragedies like the one in Aurora? And how are you going to persuade people to agree to such changes? People like their guns, and they like their violent movies and TV and video games. Tell people to get rid of them, and you'll just get the middle finger.

Personally, I think the better solution is addressing the horrific lack of mental health care in this country, and also addressing the stigmas against the mentally ill, which lead them to avoid treatment, which leads family and friends to discourage mentally ill loved-ones from getting treatment. I also think we need more resources available to take down the financial barriers to treatment.

My vision is one where people think as little about going to the doctor to treat a mental illness as they would to go to the doctor to be treated for the flu. It shouldn't be a big deal, there shouldn't be a stigma in it, and everyone gets checked out, gets tuned up, and helped out so people aren't so isolated.

Much easier, and less nasty effects on liberty than trying to deal with gun issues or violent entertainment.

[flamingdem]

16. I partially agree. Mental health yes. But I've seen the latest video games and

they are so extremely violent they make me ill. And I worked in that industry so I have a tolerance.

I know normal people who get into those games but I don't think it's good for them really. It's
operating on levels we don't understand. It's changing our society in a subtle way, not for the
better.

[backscatter712]

19. So how would you address this?

I think the best we can do is keep the ratings on the games like we already have, so parents have fair warning, don't buy the games with the big M on the box for their kids, just like they don't let them watch R-rated movies.

Once you're grown up, you get to make your own decisions as to whether you're going to play gory video games or watch Saw XVII.

[flamingdem]

20. I think A. violence education in primary school + B. social discouragement of hyperviolence

It needs to be made socially unacceptable, like smoking.

The herd mentality could tap it down some. Let it be a thing for marginals but not those who are
woven into the culture in a responsible way. People need to reflect. I am not anti-porn by the
way - I am not a censorship advocate but this needs a social movement or we'll see it get worse

No more senseless suffering, it can happen

[backscatter712]

21. I think that can be done in schools without too much trouble.

Something like anti-smoking campaigns.

The nice part is that there's no need to ban anything, just educate people, try to create some cultural norms that violence isn't cool, ultra-violent movies mess with your head, that sort of thing.

It's a delicate balance - get over-zealous, and people will just roll their eyes at you. Smokers are still rolling their eyes at people doing anti-smoking campaigns, even when they're missing one lung and talking with an electronic voice box.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. Sounds like you are an advocate for the Department of Peace.

As a Kucinich supporter, so am I.

[flamingdem]

26. Good point. The eye rolling is something to avoid. But

I live in CA and at first people were really annoyed, smokers mostly, and now they are apologetic. Things really do change. Plus, we have to make some sense out of this.. as a society, by taking action.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. Violent movies don't inspire violence in other countries.

But then, they know it's just a movie.

[boxman15]

17. America needs to stop living in fear,

whether that's fear of terrorists, shooters, diseases whatever. These are isolated incidents. Changing your way of life is exactly what these deranged individuals wanted.

[randome]

25. So the 'moral panic' so far is a movie theatre company banning costumes?

Sorry, I'm not in the slightest worried about that. Unless you think this is going someplace else, all I see so far is a lot of concern and justifiable hand-wringing.

[reformist2]

29. These shootings are happening much more frequently than they used to, and it makes sense to

take actions that might help prevent future shootings.

So you disagree with banning costumes. I think it makes sense. Who knows really whether it will work, really?

I think the criterion for problem solving here ought to be not whether a proposed remedy is scientifically proven,
but whether it sounds like a reasonable thing to do, and does not trample on people's rights.

[backscatter712]

30. This is the stupidest thing I've read yet today about the shootings and their aftermath.

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Time to have a refreshment in sixth-grade civics, with an emphasis on the First Amendment.

Banning costumes tramples on peoples' rights, because costumes are a form of expressive art, and are therefore speech. Furthermore, banning costumes has not been shown to stop any violence. The only people saying otherwise are a bunch of pencilnecks at AMC who are panicking and throwing bad policy at the fear-fest in hopes that everybody else leaves them alone.

All you're going off is your gut of truthiness, and the way we determine whether something is genuinely reasonable, as opposed to sounds-sort-of-reasonable-but-is-actually-idiotic, is, well, science.

You want to ban costumes in theaters? PROVE THAT THEY'RE HARMFUL! Don't just flail around saying "Maybe it's this, maybe it's that, let's throw a shotgun of moral-panic-induced liberty-infringing laws at the problem and see what happens." I'm not willing to take the blow to my liberty for your little experiment. If you want to make such a law, prove to me that the harm you are doing to my liberty is actually beneficial.

The only way to do that is with science. And until I see that proof, I will fight these infringements with everything I've got.

[white_wolf]

31. +1!

[Posteritatis]

33. Yep. (nt)

[HiPointDem]

35. but it doesn't sound like a reasonable thing to do & it does trample on people's rights.

[HiPointDem]

34. k&r. and some moral panics are ramped up specifically to take away people's rights or destroy

the freedom of certain groups.

the smell of the lynch mob is on all of it.