This is done using a technique indicating a kind of bias by story selection. If someone wants to run a story on the drastic decline in school shootings that has been occurring over the last several decades, but someone else wants to run a story on a recent school shooting, the recent school shooting story will be given the go-ahead. The aim of this is to passively give the audience the impression that, because an event is "newsworthy," it is a common event. Never mind that, for every report that makes it to air, there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of other potential stories; only the ones that actually make it scale up to the bigger picture of society at large.
Most people don't travel very far in their daily lives. Even taking into account commutes to work that are an hour or two long, few people work several states away from their place of residence, let alone across the country -- or across the world. Additionally, the average person tends to selectively absorb information that is most beneficial for him or her to absorb; if you like football, you're not going to actively seek out information about cricket, and if you're a Christian, you're not going to actively seek out information about Islam, or Norse paganism. Are you a big fan of heavy metal? If you are, you're statistically unlikely to read up on post-war jazz or psychedelic trance.
What this seems to imply is that, because most of us are so stubbornly attached to those artifacts of culture which define us as individuals, all that the media has to do is present us with a few incidents while selectively ignoring contrary incidents, and we'll just assume that the world "is" the way that the media has decided to portray it this time. We're too ignorant and lazy to peer review what the media presents us with.
To most people, there are only a few types of music: rock, rap, pop, jazz, classical. To most people, there are only a few religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism. To most people, there are only a few political ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, centralism. To most people, there are only a few things happening in the world in general, and almost all of the "important" ones make it to our televisions and computer screens.
How silly.
We tend to forget just how large the number "one million" really is, let alone "one billion." The speed with which information gets to us makes us feel as though the world is far smaller than it actually is; the consequence is that the dozen or so worldly events that we hear about during a month come to paint a picture of a small, physical landscape where such events predominate, and the organizations in charge of presenting us the events can pick and choose at their leisure.
There are a few reasons for why the media might want to passively suggest to the American public that we're facing some kind of "mass killing" epidemic:
1. Gun control advocates who want to ban all gun ownership outright
2. Pharmaceuticals companies who want to sell their products to psychiatric patients with arbitrary "mood disorders"
3. Lobbyists interested in censoring violence in popular media, like movies and video games
Perhaps the thousands of events reported to the police that we never hear about are not so much unrepresentative of social trends as they are irrelevant to a particular body's pursuit of wealth and power.
Here are some burglary facts:
1. More than seventy percent of burglaries occur during the daytime.
2. The favored time of day to commit a burglary is between 7:00 and 10:00 AM -- after you've gone to work and the kids have left for school. It's highly unusual for a burglar to actually run into his victim.
3. The majority of burglaries are the result of doors being left unlocked.
4. Many burglaries are perpetrated by neighbors.
5. Burglary is incredibly rare in the United States to begin with; out of around 112 million homes, only a little over 2 million get burglarized every year -- a little under two percent. Most of those burglaries occur in areas where job creation is difficult and crime is high in general, meaning that the majority of that 2 million figure will never leave the same concentrated metropolitan areas. In other words, if you've never been burgled, don't expect that to change anytime soon -- and if it does, you'll be several times more likely to be at work than waking up in a cold sweat at 4:00 AM from the hideous sound of your door being kicked in!
Movies, dramatized reenactments, and commercials aimed at getting us to buy junk will tell a different story, but the numbers don't lie.
So what about school shootings and other similar mass killings? Aren't quiet, skinny, geeky guys starting to lose their minds because of social withdrawal and violent video games?
Well, not really. School shootings have been going on since at least the 1970s, and there were more incidents involving gunfire on school property during the 80s than either the 90s or the 00s. The year before the Columbine massacre, an incident in Oregon left 22 wounded and 2 dead, but it was completely overshadowed by the Columbine story. Why is everyone familiar with "Eric and Dylan" but not ol' Kip Kinkel? Could it be because he struggled in school and wound up enrolled in special education courses? That's not exactly the typical picture of a smart, withdrawn guy going crazy; you can't push an agenda when the perpetrator doesn't fit into your view of the trend.
Here's what the National School Safety Center has to say about gun-related deaths in schools during the 90s:
1992–1993 (44 Homicides and 55 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1993–1994 (42 Homicides and 51 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1994–1995 (17 Homicides and 20 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1995–1996 (29 Homicides and 35 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1996–1997 (23 Homicides and 25 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1997–1998 (35 Homicides and 40 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1998–1999 (25 Homicides from school shootings in the U.S.)
1999–2000 (25 Homicides from school shootings in the U.S.)
Quite a drop! Even if the numbers start to go back up someday, just remember that the increase is terribly, terribly insignificant. What if, say, one hundred school massacres occur next year, in contrast to the four or five that have happened so far this decade? There are nearly 100,000 public schools in the United States, so even that highly significant increase would only amount to a 0.1% likelihood of you ever seeing a gun in your school (right now, it's something like 0.006%).
This is stupid. Considering the outright disappearance of pistol duels among gentleman and riots instigated by unruly gangs -- phenomena once prevalent in the 18th and 19th centuries -- violence is just about the least of our concerns today. Why don't we start reporting on things that matter -- like false medical diagnoses, increases in anxiety disorders, alcohol-related suicides, or, you know, the fourteen percent of the species that's starving to death?
Hi Adamn. If you do not reply, this affirms what I believe.
ReplyDeleteHi
DeleteI'm the original blog owner. This is a post that's over ten years old on an even older blog from a very miserable time in my life when I was still in my 20's and fairly isolated and didn't have a whole lot going on. I do not condone any of the insane views that I espoused in any of these posts. I am no longer an antinatalist, although I understand the rationale and still partially agree with some of it, but I prefer taking a more positive approach to life now. If you're interested in how I got sucked into a pretty horrible echo chamber, look up the YouTube 'Inmendham' to see where this philosophy comes from. Thank you.
DeleteYooooooo the shooting happened on the Dec 14 how did this get posted on Dec 16, 2012?
ReplyDeleteYou can schedule posts with Blogspot/Blogger. In my mind this is his rationale using his research knowledge on this topic. What's sad is while out of line, he does make a couple good points in this especially with media coverage.
DeleteI'm the original blog owner. This is a post that's over ten years old on an even older blog from a very miserable time in my life when I was still in my 20's and fairly isolated and didn't have a whole lot going on. I do not condone any of the insane views that I espoused in any of these posts. I am no longer an antinatalist, although I understand the rationale and still partially agree with some of it, but I prefer taking a more positive approach to life now. If you're interested in how I got sucked into a pretty horrible echo chamber, look up the YouTube 'Inmendham' to see where this philosophy comes from. Thank you.
DeleteFollow-up comment: I forgot to add that, obviously, this post was in direct response to the media's obsession with school shooters, and their depiction of these events as common, when they are in fact extremely rare. Of course a post of this nature would have been made two days after Adam did what he did; it was a direct response to it.
Delete:c
ReplyDeleteIt's not Adam lanza you idiots. Check out his blogg post from Wednesday, July 11, 2012 he made a comment on Januari 2013 responding to another user
ReplyDeleteI'm the original blog owner. This is a post that's over ten years old on an even older blog from a very miserable time in my life when I was still in my 20's and fairly isolated and didn't have a whole lot going on. I do not condone any of the insane views that I espoused in any of these posts. I am no longer an antinatalist, although I understand the rationale and still partially agree with some of it, but I prefer taking a more positive approach to life now. If you're interested in how I got sucked into a pretty horrible echo chamber, look up the YouTube 'Inmendham' to see where this philosophy comes from. Thank you.
DeleteFollow-up comment: I forgot to add that, obviously, this post was in direct response to the media's obsession with school shooters, and their depiction of these events as common, when they are in fact extremely rare. Of course a post of this nature would have been made two days after Adam did what he did; it was a direct response to it.
DeleteInfact he has posted several comments in 2013
ReplyDeleteHi everyone, I'm the original blog owner. This is a post that's over ten years old on an even older blog from a very miserable time in my life when I was still in my 20's and fairly isolated and didn't have a whole lot going on. I do not condone any of the insane views that I espoused in any of these posts. I am no longer an antinatalist, although I understand the rationale and still partially agree with some of it, but I prefer taking a more positive approach to life now. If you're interested in how I got sucked into a pretty horrible echo chamber, look up the YouTube 'Inmendham' to see where this philosophy comes from. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't renounce your beliefs, especially to call them 'insane'. Most of what you said was objectively correct, or offering a valuable perspective at least. You say this was the product of a bad time in your life which I say only increases the importance and credibility of what you wrote; oftentimes it is only at our lowest points that one can be truly cognizant of reality. I'm always disappointed when I hear someone repudiate their past worldview, especially in your case- you seem to be betraying a well-constructed, informed ideology. I don't mean to attack you, in fact you probably won't see this at all. I just wanted to share my thoughts.
DeleteGlad to hear you're doing better now, Gary Inmendham is particularly insane. At one point people were speculating that this blog belonged to Adam Lanza, but obviously it did not. We can see where antinatalism and efilism unfortunately led Adam down the path to destruction and murder.
Delete[part 1]
DeleteIn response to NowI'mNothing:
I'm no longer an antinatalist because it's a futile waste of time. Life is vast on this planet alone, and could be far more so elsewhere. You can't end all life. Who is going to hunt down every single microscopic water bear and make sure it doesn't have sex before it dies? Life will exist for as long as planets that harbor life exist. Fighting it is a waste of the precious little time we have here.
I've also come to appreciate the limitations imposed by nature on suffering organism in the wild. True suffering seems not only a human phenomenon, but one born of modernity in particular (starting with the agricultural revolution, then the industrial one, etc.). Endorphins are a thing. Natural painkillers are a thing. Biological systems going into shock is a thing. Deer can walk around for days with half their bodies missing and continue to eat grass and yawn and do seemingly "normal" things, indicating that perhaps we've made a grave error by anthropomorphizing all these creatures. Most people who've been shot during a mass shooting incident or mauled by a mountain lion report feeling nothing at all because they were in shock for the entire experience.
The reality is that suffering has evolutionary benefits, but beyond a certain point is utterly excessive and impractical from a survival standpoint. If you're in absolute agony while being attacked by a predator, you'll never escape. If your body goes into shock and you don't feel anything, you still have a chance of escaping due to not being utterly incapacitated.
That's not to say that animals don't suffer in horrible ways in the wild, but it's almost always acute rather than chronic. A seal can live into its twenties, and being extremely playful and social creatures, they may spend almost two decades playing in the water with their seal friends (or even strange humans) before being eaten by an orca. The sharp teeth of the orca may feel pretty bad for a few seconds, but then the extreme nature of the situation causes the seal's system to shut off pain receptors while in shock, and then it's dead seconds later.
Unlike humans, it didn't brood for a month prior wondering if there is more to life, and whether it would regret not doing something more important should an orca come up behind it in the near future. There was no mental suffering leading up to the event. So that's two decades of a pretty good life followed by a fairly good, quick death when one compares it with a human in a hospital bed dying of cancer. Chronic illness and suffering is a modern human phenomenon.
As for this blog, I was obsessed. I was fresh out of college, still living with parents, had no friends, and basically sat on the Internet from 10 in the morning until 5 AM the following night, with no job or any incentive to do anything else. I wouldn't shower for a week straight, with piles of dishes surrounding my bed, and my computer less than a foot from where I slept. I would crawl out of bed after sleeping for three or four hours, move a few inches to where the computer was, then sit in my sweaty underwear all day while angrily yelling at people in AOL chatrooms, listening to Inmendham rant in his videos, and post in my blog.
I passed a kidney stone because it was too difficult to step away from the computer long enough to get a glass of water when I was thirsty. Being on the computer was more important. And the sun? Forget it. Didn't see that thing for years and wound up with pretty severe vitamin D deficiency as a result while living like a nasty, miserable troll in a hole in the wall in my parents' house.
[part 2]
DeleteDo you know what Inmendham's life is like? The dude used to live in a literal shack in the woods. He has agoraphobia, just like I did. He can't walk for more than a mile away from where he lives or he'll have a panic attack. He's a hoarder with trash and junk piled all around him. He doesn't cut or comb his hair and all his clothes are hand-me-downs. He has his groceries delivered to him because he'll have a panic attack if he goes to the grocery store. He's scared to drive a car and doesn't have a license.
Do you know how many videos he has on YouTube? More than four thousand. He rarely misses posting each day. He's been at it for eighteen years on YouTube. Eighteen years! A child could be born and then graduate high school in the time he's been screaming at the camera about the horrors of life.
This is literally what he does all day every day of his life. He has no friends, no family. He's an extremely unlikeable, anti-social, awkward person who is incapable of being among polite, functional company. Just watch any videos where someone meets him in person and you'll see what I mean.
It's no coincidence that someone like this would be a hardcore antinatalist. When you're depressed, rumination is one of the worst perpetuators, the very last thing you want to be including in your daily routine. And what Gary does is an extreme version of the very typical rumination cases that are typical of depression.
The argument for antinatalism is a very simple one, albeit flawed. Again, you can't even come close to ending all life, so it's pointless to think about. And even if you could, most organisms don't suffer. The vast majority of them aren't even animals (> 99%). The few that are animals are things like insects or creatures with extremely simple nervous systems, where whether or not they suffer at all is a matter of debate. And the very very small minority of more complex animals that can and do suffer only do so during a brief encounter with a predator, or at the very end of an often surprisingly long life (elephants in the wild routinely make it to 70 years old).
But all that aside, let's suppose that Inmendham has a point. The point can be laid out in one video. Maaaybe a little series of videos. A few lectures and debates.
Not four thousand over eighteen years. Gary's goal with making videos is not to prove a point or to win an argument or to promote an important idea. Don't be fooled. Gary's goal is to vent and give in to the circular, endless thought processes of the mentally ill -- to ruminate, where being active and finding things to DO in life is preferable. He is the last person in this world that anyone should bother listening to.
How many more thousand times does he have to make the same argument before it's clear that the argument isn't the end goal, but rather, coping with his awful life is? His behavior is indicative of extreme pathology. And I'm glad to no longer be a part of his cult.
creepy
ReplyDelete