• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much time must go by before it's acceptable to talk about responses to mass violence?

How much time must go by before it's acceptable to talk about responses to mass violence?

  • Discussion should be ongoing, regardless new incidents.

    Votes: 17 68.0%

  • We should start talking immediately.

    Votes: 3 12.0%

  • Give it a day.

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • 2-3 days, then have at it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • A week needs to go by. Give time to reflect and heal.

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Talk is cheap. Stop wasting time. Get over it and move on.

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • Total voters
    25
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
How much time must go by before it's acceptable to talk about responses to mass violence?

Generic scenario. An incident of mass violence occurs. Some people want to talk about what we should do right away. Some people want to politicize it. Some people want to be respectful to the victims. People get upset with everybody else for doing whatever, and accuse others of placing blame.

Is there an appropriate period of time that should go by before we can start talking about it? If incidents are increasing in frequency, when will we ever have the time? Should discussion and debate be ongoing regardless any new incidents?

Thoughts?
 
In my mind, it all depends on your audience (assuming the incident itself is completely over). To members of DP, I don't think there's any amount of time necessary, as these events will impact almost 0% (if not 0% exactly) of the members of DP. However, if I'm talking to family members of the latest NYC attack, I might wait some time before I start talking about guns or Muslims or whatever, perhaps until THEY are ready to talk about it.

It depends on the audience, in my opinion.
 
People react. People feel a need to know and gain some kind of control over a situation (however unrealistic that may be, it's still human nature). They need to vent and communicate with their peers to try and feel some control, even some comfort. Vent their anger, etc etc etc.

An they get bored waiting for more information.

Lord knows the media channels get annoying as Hell as they repeat themselves over and over.
 
With the 24/7 news cycle, it's impossible to put a mass-violence incident on some back burner.
 
Rogue Valley said:
With the 24/7 news cycle, it's impossible to put a mass-violence incident on some back burner.
Click to expand...

The Las Vegas incident seems to have slipped off the radar.......
 
I didnt really see alot of distinction between the first 2 poll options. Voted for 1 but agree with 2 also.

Let's face it....posting on the Internet is not the same as addressing friends or family of those affected, or actually having any influence on the incident.

Any claims of 'insensitivity' or 'decency' are seem rather 'snowflakey' to me unless they are derogatory about the victims.
 
radcen said:
How much time must go by before it's acceptable to talk about responses to mass violence?

Generic scenario. An incident of mass violence occurs. Some people want to talk about what we should do right away. Some people want to politicize it. Some people want to be respectful to the victims. People get upset with everybody else for doing whatever, and accuse others of placing blame.

Is there an appropriate period of time that should go by before we can start talking about it? If incidents are increasing in frequency, when will we ever have the time? Should discussion and debate be ongoing regardless any new incidents?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
The appropriate time to discuss any violent event is when it is happening, and at all times after it happened.
And in most if not all perspectives and contexts - what this means, could we stop it, etc, etc, etc.

That said, context is important here - if you're going to talk about how someone who was killed was an asshole, it's really quite rude to do so at their funeral.

Additionally, there is large potential for problems if speculation is unleashed upon an event when no or very few facts are known - so IMO, speculation as to who, what, why, and so forth, should be avoided until after an event, to give time for facts to become available.
 
Start whenever you wish.

Those ready to participate will, those not will wait until they feel it is appropriate.
 
Slyfox696 said:
In my mind, it all depends on your audience (assuming the incident itself is completely over). To members of DP, I don't think there's any amount of time necessary, as these events will impact almost 0% (if not 0% exactly) of the members of DP. However, if I'm talking to family members of the latest NYC attack, I might wait some time before I start talking about guns or Muslims or whatever, perhaps until THEY are ready to talk about it.

It depends on the audience, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

What if that DP member lives or has family in NYC?
 
holbritter said:
What if that DP member lives or has family in NYC?
Click to expand...

I do. Have loads of them in NYC.

If that DP member is uncomfortable, they do not have to participate in the thread.
 
I never thought I'd see the day but I recently discovered that its still too soon for some liberals to start talking about Dubya's failure to protect this country and prevent 9-11.
 
Rexedgar said:
The Las Vegas incident seems to have slipped off the radar.......
Click to expand...

Incident is a good word here as all this time after we still have no idea what that was all about.
 
radcen said:
How much time must go by before it's acceptable to talk about responses to mass violence?

Generic scenario. An incident of mass violence occurs. Some people want to talk about what we should do right away. Some people want to politicize it. Some people want to be respectful to the victims. People get upset with everybody else for doing whatever, and accuse others of placing blame.

Is there an appropriate period of time that should go by before we can start talking about it? If incidents are increasing in frequency, when will we ever have the time? Should discussion and debate be ongoing regardless any new incidents?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out that window of time myself. I know it was "wrong" to talk about the Las Vegas massacre just when it happened and it was still fresh on everybody's mind. Now, it's out of sight, out of mind, and bump-stocks, that one gun-control measure that Congress was even thinking of entertaining, are back on sale. So another window for discussion closes, and we can look forward to the next massacre that we won't be allowed to discuss solutions to.

A month after the Las Vegas massacre, bump stocks — the devices that make a rifle fire like a machine gun — are back on sale.
Slide Fire, the company that owns the patent on the rifle modification, said it has resumed taking new orders for bump stocks for the first time after temporarily suspending new sales a month ago.
Click to expand...

Slide Fire starts selling bump stocks again - Nov. 1, 2017
 
radcen said:
How much time must go by before it's acceptable to talk about responses to mass violence?

Generic scenario. An incident of mass violence occurs. Some people want to talk about what we should do right away. Some people want to politicize it. Some people want to be respectful to the victims. People get upset with everybody else for doing whatever, and accuse others of placing blame.

Is there an appropriate period of time that should go by before we can start talking about it? If incidents are increasing in frequency, when will we ever have the time? Should discussion and debate be ongoing regardless any new incidents?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I had a hard time deciding between the first two because they were actually quite similar. We need ongoing discussions but if they weren't ongoing already then we need to start talking immediately, especially in regards to terrorist attacks. But, it is the quality of the talks that matter. For instance, with mass gun shootings it is a mistake to think that gun control legislation will stop gun violence. We need to talk about the things that will actually work, not band aid solutions such as gun control.
 
Same day. Don't care. There's no such thing as too soon.
 
There's a difference between talking about responses to types of crime in general terms and talking about a specific incident. The former can and should be an ongoing, though much of the time there could well be nothing much to say or do.

The main issue with talking about specific incidents immediately afterwards is that the information available to the public is always incomplete and often incorrect or misleading. Talking about policy in relation to singular incidents is flawed at the best of times but doing it when you know you don't have all the relevant information is unjustifiable.
 
radcen said:
How much time must go by before it's acceptable to talk about responses to mass violence?

Generic scenario. An incident of mass violence occurs. Some people want to talk about what we should do right away. Some people want to politicize it. Some people want to be respectful to the victims. People get upset with everybody else for doing whatever, and accuse others of placing blame.

Is there an appropriate period of time that should go by before we can start talking about it? If incidents are increasing in frequency, when will we ever have the time? Should discussion and debate be ongoing regardless any new incidents?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Hm. Watching reactions and counter-reactions, I think I can safely assess that it depends entirely on whether or not one agrees with the proposed response.


Those who are correct are "trying to protect innocents"
Those who are incorrect are "politicizing the tragedy"


I would say that some instances require immediate reaction (the Bush admin responded on 9/11 by pulling every single plane out of the air. That was probably wise).... but that we tend not to make our best decisions when we do so emotionally (some people wanted to nuke Afghanistan after 9/11. That was probably not wise).
 
Why limit it to just mass violence? Violence is an epidemic in the US and something that we should all be talking about on an ongoing basis.
 
Talk, talk, talk. we've talked this subject out for years. Very few opinions have been changed. Mostly the talk is a repeat of what's been said many, many, many times before. Has legislation gone anywhere? The fact is, we really have no idea how to fight terrorism, because it isn't rational. And if someone wants to do mass murder, they will find a way. Whether it's Tim McVay and a truck load of fertilizer or a Home depot truck speeding down the bike path, Sarin gas in a subway, bombs on a train or suicide bombers; an open and democratic society has no real defense against terror. Even totalitarian states like Russia and China are short on answers, though their methods do seem to be more effective than anything we will ever be willing to do. So keep moving, nothing to see here.
 
Over 17000 people were killed in America last year. I don't give a **** about terrorism. Your greatest risk is simply being murdered.
 
pillars said:
Over 17000 people were killed in America last year. I don't give a **** about terrorism. Your greatest risk is simply being murdered.
Click to expand...

Well, your greatest risk is heart disease. But yeah, your point stands.
 
pillars said:
Why limit it to just mass violence? Violence is an epidemic in the US and something that we should all be talking about on an ongoing basis.
Click to expand...

No it's not, violent crime is the lowest it's been in the U.S. in decades. We probably live in the safest country we ever have.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm trying to figure out that window of time myself. I know it was "wrong" to talk about the Las Vegas massacre just when it happened and it was still fresh on everybody's mind. Now, it's out of sight, out of mind, and bump-stocks, that one gun-control measure that Congress was even thinking of entertaining, are back on sale. So another window for discussion closes, and we can look forward to the next massacre that we won't be allowed to discuss solutions to.



Slide Fire starts selling bump stocks again - Nov. 1, 2017
Click to expand...

I don't think any rental company stopped renting trucks.
 
pillars said:
Over 17000 people were killed in America last year. I don't give a **** about terrorism. Your greatest risk is simply being murdered.
Click to expand...

if you don't do illegal drugs, or associate with those who do, your chances of getting murdered isn't any higher than most other first world nations
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom