School Shootings

[Riverwind]

(Did I have this right? The media goads people to commit atrocities?)

No - the media provides the incentive. We would not see these types of killings if the media applied the same restraint that it does when children are abused. I have never heard of a media outlet violating the publication ban on abused children's names because the journalists recognize that there are ethical principles that are more important than getting the story out. These killings would not happen if the media learned the same restraint.

[Argus]

If you're lashing out at bullies then you should be killing the bullies, not small, weak geeks and such.

So you agree with me that bullies need to be investigated and prosecuted. Right on dude.

Bullying is part of our society. It happens in schools. It happens in offices. It happens in sports. It happens with boys and girls, men and women. It needs to be kept in check, but the only realistic way to do that is with the attention of older men and women who can step in and point out to the young the errors of their ways. If you go back to the roots of our societies, it was always the elders who kept the young in check. Unfortunately, we no longer pay much attention to our elders.

Why don't shooters target their bullies? If you watch 'Bowling for Columbine' you will see a couple of guys assembling a ritualized response. At some point, they just decided to react. My theory is that people who 'go postal' take it as much as they can and then suddenly explode.

It is a myth that the Columbine killers were reacting against bullies. There is no actual evidence they were bullied or particularly outcast, and no evidence they ever intended to target bullies either. They had a hit list but it included Tiger Williams, of all people. This should show you they were not reacting to bullying. In any event, they never made any attempt to go after anyone on their hit list.

[Argus]

All I can say is for me, what helped me as an agry teen-ager and I mean very angry and troubled, was organized sports, organized group activities where I had to look after animals or other people and didn't have time to dwell on myself, and some good teachers that did not judge me and simply accepted me at face value. I personally think young men need sports and organized activities to channel their anger and aggression.

I think the school system, in general, fails boys and helps girls and I think this problem has been getting worse.

Here I agree completely. Boys and girls learn differently. This is something acknowledged by professionals even while those same professionals keep trying to force boys into the same mold as the girls (which is the preferred mold because it is more "sensitive" and "caring" and "cooperative" and "non-violent". In large part this is due to the shrinking numbers of male teachers, and hand in hand, the shrinking influence of males on education and education theory.

Sadly, the morphing of the profession is occurring at a time when male teachers may be most needed. How many single-parent families live without a single male role model? An article in the Christian Science Monitor (MacDonald, 2003) quotes a female teacher as saying: “Men show boys what they could become. And girls need to see a nurturing male in order to see what kind of men they’d like to have in their lives.”

Natasja found this true. She didn’t have a male teacher until junior high school. Her junior high science teacher was her favourite because he was fair to everyone, consistent and never played head games. He tried to connect with everyone by getting to know them. He was approachable and considerate. Obviously, a woman can have these qualities, too, but there was something else about this male teacher—no one ever fooled around because they didn’t want to upset him. Natasja hates to admit it, but she thinks men command good behaviour in ways women can’t—especially in junior high, where students seek models to emulate. Her experience tells her that it’s important for boys and girls to have both male and female teachers.

Some respondents suggested that men teach differently: unlike some female teachers, males expected less serenity, have more tolerance for noise, active play, movement and talking in class. In fact, young boys may suffer when codes of conduct reflect the sensibilities of an all-female faculty. Specifically, boys play with each other in more rough and tumble ways, and women set rules based on how they would like to be treated if they were playing, (MacDonald, 2003).

Male teachers

An aside. I was a poor student, not very attentive, a dreamer, and often truant, and left school very early in life, only to have to go back later. I don't have a lot of fond memories of school. But when I think back, I remember a few teachers, sometimes not a lot about them than a general impression. I remember Mr. O'Neil, my grade 8 home room teacher, good humoured but tough - I remember him physically dragging an angry male student to the door and chucking him out into the hall. I remember Mr. Fergis, Grade 7 and 8 Science - you NEVER screwed around in his class. I remember a tall red haired man with a beard who taught geography, and a tubby math teacher who seemed to know EVERYTHING - but I can't, for the life of me, remember a single female teacher.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

WTF? It's now the fault of Walmart?

No, not theirs at all. Yours, and mine. Of what we value. We fuel their actions. And in a strange circle, ours.

[Michael Hardner]

Wong has a house on the Bridle Path complete with Philippina maids.

Wong has a maid so we should ignore her ? Strange.

[Riverwind]

Wong has a house on the Bridle Path complete with Philippina maids.

Wong has a maid so we should ignore her ? Strange.

Wong also spent several weeks working as maid and trying to live on wages a maid makes - she then wrote series of articles on what life is like for people doing that kind of job. IOW - she many have a priviledged lifestyle today but she has certainly demonstrated that she has respect for the people she hires to do her housework.

[August1991]

Wong has a house on the Bridle Path complete with Philippina maids.

Out of curiousity, not a desire to defend Wong, I checked this factoid.

Wong apparently lives in the same riding as Toronto's Bridle Path and has a part-time housekeeper, all of which she admitted herself:

Our riding, which includes the Bridle Path, has the highest average income in the country, according to the Elections Canada's website. We vacation abroad. We have a part-time housekeeper.

G & M

For the record, I live in the same city as Paul Desmarais but I don't have a house on Redpath Crescent.

[Charles Anthony]

(Did I have this right? The media goads people to commit atrocities?)

No - the media provides the incentive. We would not see these types of killings if the media applied the same restraint that it does when children are abused.

However, consumers are complicit in both instances. The media displays what we buy.

I have never heard of a media outlet violating the publication ban on abused children's names because the journalists recognize that there are ethical principles that are more important than getting the story out. These killings would not happen if the media learned the same restraint.

That is a false comparison. The force of law is behind publication bans.

Bullying is part of our society. It happens in schools. It happens in offices. It happens in sports. It happens with boys and girls, men and women. It needs to be kept in check, but the only realistic way to do that is with the attention of older men and women who can step in and point out to the young the errors of their ways. If you go back to the roots of our societies, it was always the elders who kept the young in check. Unfortunately, we no longer pay much attention to our elders.

I agree completely.

I believe the problem is a result of elders not paying much attention to their children. People are more concerned with getting their children to daycare on time instead of what their kids do in daycare.

I personally blame the 'consumerist culture', because it breeds (perhaps unintentionally, as a bad by-product) isolationsim and severe (perhaps even harmful) levels of individualism.

WTF? It's now the fault of Walmart?

No, not theirs at all. Yours, and mine. Of what we value. We fuel their actions. And in a strange circle, ours.

Come on. Your strange circle is better known as non-coercive co-operation (granted, with a little bit of croney-State-intervention tossed into the mix).

Your "comsumerist culture" breeds isolationism and individualism in the same way as the egg breeds the chicken --- or is it the other way around? which one came first???

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Come on. Your strange circle is better known as non-coercive co-operation (granted, with a little bit of croney-State-intervention tossed into the mix).

Your "comsumerist culture" breeds isolationism and individualism in the same way as the egg breeds the chicken --- or is it the other way around? which one came first???

No, I am talking about the attempt to capture your eyes, your ears and your mind. The only 'infomercial' I ever saw that extolled family values over consuming product was "A message from the Curch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", but they seek to take over your mind as well...they want their 10%!

The only thing missing now is having the 'thought police' driving down your street with a megaphone, saying "Stay in your homes....consume...do not communicate with others, get those ipods in your ear, and watch the television...it will tell you the 'flavour of the day, for your worshipping enjoyment..."

[Higgly]

Yes you are right. My comments about Wong were unfair and unreasonable. My apologies.

[Charles Anthony]

No, I am talking about the attempt to capture your eyes, your ears and your mind.

No, you are identifying an "attempt" when none exists. You are treating us members of the "consumerist culture" like we are all immature children growing up in some kind of a religion and never developing our own brain nor free-will.

Once people reach adulthood, it makes no sense to make across-the-board generalizations blaming their actions on "consumerist culture" or any other chimeric entity. Having adults believe that they can blame something else for their actions is a prescription for chaos.

Help me: exactly how does the media "attempt" to capture you?

The only 'infomercial' I ever saw that extolled family values over consuming product was "A message from the Curch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", but they seek to take over your mind as well...they want their 10%!

You know why: because not enough people want those family values.

Same thing governs the hoola-hoop market. I have never seen a commercial for hoola-hoops either.

How about you defend your attack on "consumerist culture" by writing a list of criteria to help us determine what we should and should not buy?

[Riverwind]

However, consumers are complicit in both instances. The media displays what we buy.

Correct - media is feeding a natural human instinct.

I have never heard of a media outlet violating the publication ban on abused children's names because the journalists recognize that there are ethical principles that are more important than getting the story out. These killings would not happen if the media learned the same restraint.

That is a false comparison. The force of law is behind publication bans.

It is not that simple: the law would mean nothing if most journalists did not agree with the ethical principles behind it. A publication ban on the names and images f mass murderers would only be effective if there was a broad social consensus that such a ban is in the public interest.

[Charles Anthony]

These killings would not happen if the media learned the same restraint.

That is a false comparison. The force of law is behind publication bans.

It is not that simple: the law would mean nothing if most journalists did not agree with the ethical principles behind it. A publication ban on the names and images f mass murderers would only be effective if there was a broad social consensus that such a ban is in the public interest.

I agree. However, which one is it? Are the ethics of the media to blame or are consumers?

Maybe it is both.

[Higgly]

Bullying is part of our society. It happens in schools. It happens in offices. It happens in sports. It happens with boys and girls, men and women. It needs to be kept in check, but the only realistic way to do that is with the attention of older men and women who can step in and point out to the young the errors of their ways. If you go back to the roots of our societies, it was always the elders who kept the young in check. Unfortunately, we no longer pay much attention to our elders.

The internet has put bullying on hormones. Consider a high school girl who decides she does not like another girl. She sends a message to the people on her buddy list saying "So and so is a whore. I know a boy who says he paid her $50 to put out. Pass it on."

Say there are 4 girls in her buddy list. Two don't pass it on because they know the instigator is jealous of the target and is just trying to hurt her. However, the other two are near the bottom of the pecking order and want to please the instigator, so they pass it on to the girls in their buddy list. Within a week, hundreds of kids at the school are giggling and calling the girl a whore behind her back. Boys are making jokes about her in the locker room. She sees this happening but she has no clue as to why. All she knows is that she is now the school pariah. Fortunately she has good parents who take the matter in hand. They march into the school and deal with the situation. The girl who started it all is identified and is forced to leave the school.

Another situation. A boy who does not have good social skills. Somebody does something like this to him. His parents are dealing with their own problems because of a divorce and don't even have time to listen to his problems. The kid has access to guns......

Do you see how close we are to the line here?

It is a myth that the Columbine killers were reacting against bullies. There is no actual evidence they were bullied or particularly outcast, and no evidence they ever intended to target bullies either. They had a hit list but it included Tiger Williams, of all people. This should show you they were not reacting to bullying. In any event, they never made any attempt to go after anyone on their hit list.

If you Google Tiger Williams, here is what you come up with - first hit: "While most dominant images of Tiger Williams likely include him sitting in the penalty box..."

Tiger Williams was a bully. Bingo.

[Riverwind]

I agree. However, which one is it? Are the ethics of the media to blame or are consumers? Maybe it is both.

When these things happen people want to know as much as possible - I don't feel this is something that is inherently wrong nor do I feel we should blame either the media or the media consumer. My argument is the media attention confers a degree of infamy on the perpetuator, as a result, we encourage future perpetuators to do the same if they desire than same infamy. I see this a situation where we should supress our natural desire to be informed in order to better protect the long term interests of society. I feel many people could be convinced that they don't really need to know the identity of these mass killers in the same way that they have already been convinced that they don't need to know the names of victims of child abuse. What is missing are politicians willing to make this argument instead of jumping on the gun control/gun crime/bullying/bad parenting hobby horse that suits their personal political objectives.

[August1991]

The internet has put bullying on hormones. Consider a high school girl who decides she does not like another girl.... blah, blah... Fortunately she has good parents who take the matter in hand. They march into the school and deal with the situation.

How do these good parents "deal" with the situation? Have the school's principal read a message out during a school reunion?

I agree technology can change the way we deal with one another but in this case, I don't agree that the Internet makes spreading inaccurate gossip any easier. No doubt 80 years ago someone said the same about telephones.

Anyway, in this Montreal school case, the guy was 25 years old and 6 feet tall. He didn't become a lunatic because of gossip.

My argument is the media attention confers a degree of infamy on the perpetuator, as a result, we encourage future perpetuators to do the same if they desire than same infamy.

If you think the lack of media will curtail pyschopaths, you are mistaken. The Soviet Union never publicized murders and yet it had numerous serial killers.

I agree that there are exhibitionists in this world who seek publicity. I'm just not certain that this is a defining characteristic of a lunatic who kills people - in fact, I'd say it's a completely unrelated personality trait as likely in these lunatics as in the general population.

As to the media, I saw a small village of media tents, satellite trucks, cables and so on encamped around Dawson College when I walked by the other day. When the world's spotlight decides to shine its light on an event, the pressure is unbearable and suddenly, privacy doesn't exist. Many people have had to live through these events, take decisions, while under a microscopic. It's unnerving and unfair to them.

If a politician, an actor or sports person chooses to go on the public stage, then they accept the consequences. The people at this college made no such choice and yet the media expects them to perform.

At the same time, the lack of media just creates rumours and innuendo which are invariably worse.

----

Overall, people should put some historical perspective on this. If you were born yesterday, then you may be shocked by these events and believe them to be part of "modern life". How modern is modern? The largest slaughter of school children in the US occurred in 1927.

[Higgly]

How do these good parents "deal" with the situation? Have the school's principal read a message out during a school reunion?

They go to the school and confront the staff. Parents do this all the time. Have you never raised a kid?

I agree technology can change the way we deal with one another but in this case, I don't agree that the Internet makes spreading inaccurate gossip any easier. No doubt 80 years ago someone said the same about telephones.

Did they have conference calls back then?

Anyway, in this Montreal school case, the guy was 25 years old and 6 feet tall. He didn't become a lunatic because of gossip.

Ok. Why did he become a lunatic? Because he was 6 feet tall and 25 years old? Are we to assume that people who are 6'1" and 26 years old would be bigger lunatics? Enquiring minds want to know.

[Riverwind]

If you think the lack of media will curtail pyschopaths, you are mistaken. The Soviet Union never publicized murders and yet it had numerous serial killers

I never said that a publication ban would stop all mass killings. I am saying that it would remove the incentive for _some_ wanna be killers. I doubt Valerie Fabricant cared much about media attention - but I am pretty sure Dawson school killer only went from talk to action because of the infamy that he believed it would bring.

We do many things to reduce harm even though we know that few measures can eliminate harm 100%. You argument is equivalent to saying that we shouldn't require that seatbelts be placed in cars because people still die even if they wear a seat belt.

[August1991]

How do these good parents "deal" with the situation? Have the school's principal read a message out during a school reunion?

They go to the school and confront the staff.

And then what?

Why did he become a lunatic? Because he was 6 feet tall and 25 years old? Are we to assume that people who are 6'1" and 26 years old would be bigger lunatics? Enquiring minds want to know.

God knows why he did what he did.

He was a big guy and there are no reports that he was bullied or the subject of gossip. *sigh* But he's been out of high school for over 7 years so maybe people have forgotten.

[August1991]

...but I am pretty sure Dawson school killer only went from talk to action because of the infamy that he believed it would bring.

You have absolutely no evidence of that assertion.

We do many things to reduce harm even though we know that few measures can eliminate harm 100%. You argument is equivalent to saying that we shouldn't require that seatbelts be placed in cars because people still die even if they wear a seat belt.

Your argument is equivalent to saying that men should not drive cars because 50% of car accidents involve male drivers.

I am questioning whether media attention is a contributing factor in the behaviour of a pyschopath. I'm sceptical.

[Riverwind]

...but I am pretty sure Dawson school killer only went from talk to action because of the infamy that he believed it would bring.

You have absolutely no evidence of that assertion.

The guy's blogs talk about how he wanted to be remembered after his death. It is perfectly reasonable to draw such as conclusion. In any case, there are probably 10 or so factors that led to this guy flipping - remove any one of those factors and it would not have happened. Infamy conferred by media is one of those factors that we could remove.

I am questioning whether media attention is a contributing factor in the behaviour of a psychopath. I'm sceptical.

Psychopaths are people who only care about their own pleasure and have no empathy for others. The only thing that would motivate a psychopath to commit a mass murder suicide is post mortem infamy. Psychopaths that take pleasure out of the killing itself do not kill themselves.

[Higgly]

He was a big guy and there are no reports that he was bullied or the subject of gossip. *sigh* But he's been out of high school for over 7 years so maybe people have forgotten.

The CBC interviewed people on air who said that he was the target of bullying.

[Argus]

He was a big guy and there are no reports that he was bullied or the subject of gossip. *sigh* But he's been out of high school for over 7 years so maybe people have forgotten.

The CBC interviewed people on air who said that he was the target of bullying.

He was twenty five years old. Get over it.

I think one of the problems of modern life is how immensely immature so many people are even deep into their twenties.

[August1991]

I checked out a few articles in the Globe and Mail. There was an article about the theories of Mark Ames, who submits that the world is simply a crueller place, and seems to place blame on globalization et al. Jan Wong imlpies that Quebec language laws are a factor.

Michael, Jean Charest checked out the same article:

Jean Charest a envoyé, mardi, une lettre à l'éditeur du quotidien torontois pour dénoncer un article paru le 16 septembre à la suite de la fusillade survenue la semaine dernière au Collège Dawson.

La chroniqueuse vedette du journal, Jan Wong, y affirme que le contexte linguistique explique en partie la fusillade. Elle soutient que les auteurs des trois fusillades perpétrées dans des établissements scolaires au Québec ont en commun une origine étrangère et n'avaient pas réussi à s'adapter aux lois linguistiques de la province, favorables au français.

R-C

I think Charest's right, and Wong's wrong. Her ambitious face has gone one step too far. Life is too short to seek face.

----

Wow. This has the potential to create a week-long Central Canada English-French newspaper crisis. The rest of you can only watch and pretend that life is too important to waste on such touchings with what life really is.

[Michael Hardner]

Wow. This has the potential to create a week-long Central Canada English-French newspaper crisis. The rest of you can only watch and pretend that life is too important to waste on such touchings with what life really is.

Well Quebec realize, though, how far below the radar any of this is in Ontario ? I mean, Ontario is barely aware of anything that happens in Quebec these days. I'm not even sure that a 'yes' vote on separation would stir much interest these days.