Should the manifesto be released?

[Jolly]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/audrey-hale-manifesto-release-raises-major-concerns-from-lgbtq-groups/ar-AA19bzMy

[Axtremus]

At least it should not be deliberately suppressed.

Hard to imagine that members of the press have not obtained the manifesto by now.

[Mik]

Once you have said there is a manifesto, yes, it has to be released.

[Horace]

I guess I'm curious to see it, but I sniff the banality of evil from a mile away.

[jon-nyc]

I’m curious if, in general, such manifestos have any additional copycat effect than just the event itself.

For the most part the objections seem to be based on not wanting one’s community to look bad. Analogous to the hatred of libs of TikTok

[Mik]

@jon-nyc yeah, the look bad train already left the station, exacerbated by the call to militancy in the 'genocide'.

The only thing at risk of genocide here is an innocent childhood.

[Horace]

@Mik said in Should the manifesto be released?:

@jon-nyc yeah, the look bad train already left the station, exacerbated by the call to militancy in the 'genocide'.

I'll never forget the Vox podcast I listened to about Trans issues, hosted by two Trans women (biological men). There was not so much as a nod to reason or rational discussion. The hour long podcast began and ended with shrill wailing about how the world wants to kill them.

[Mik]

@Horace said in Should the manifesto be released?:

@Mik said in Should the manifesto be released?:

@jon-nyc yeah, the look bad train already left the station, exacerbated by the call to militancy in the 'genocide'.

I'll never forget the Vox podcast I listened to about Trans issues, hosted by two Trans women (biological men). There was not so much as a nod to reason or rational discussion. The hour long podcast began and ended with shrill wailing about how the world wants to kill them.

No need. Nature will delete that gene pool on its own.

[Catseye3]

First, I question that the thing counts as a manifesto. (Eyeroll.)

I think the main question to be answered is, IYO is it newsworthy? And screw the LGBTQ. If you think it's newsworthy, publish it. If not, don't.

There was a time when editors made these decisions.

Anyway, what do I think? No idea, without knowing what's in it. Feeb, I know, but what're you gonna do? The killer was a whackjob.

I guess I'd publish it for fear of being shrieked to death by social.

[89th]

Publishing the manifesto indirectly leads to more school shooters. No, it should not be published. One of the only things we can do to reduce school shootings is to stop publishing the face, name, and manifesto of the shooter. Make their crimes anonymous. Impossible, maybe, but it's really the only thing to do.

I was at the mall of america yesterday. While walking on the 3rd level, I recalled a few years ago some random man grabbed a 4 year old and threw the boy over the railing, falling 3 stories. The boy lived (injured, brain impact, etc) but the point is... you cannot stop crazy. It'll always happen.

[George K]

https://nypost.com/2023/08/15/its-democracy-in-the-dark-without-nashville-shooter-manifestos-release/

“Democracy Dies in Darkness” is the (sometimes ironic) slogan of The Washington Post.

But it’s also a fair description of what’s happening in Tennessee, as the state Legislature is being called to a special session even as local and federal officials withhold information that might be critical to its decision-making.

Gov. Bill Lee ordered the special session to begin Aug. 21 in response to a March 27 mass shooting in which three adults and three children at the Covenant School, a Christian school in Nashville’s Green Hills neighborhood, were killed.

The Nashville Tennessean article refers only to “a shooter.”

The shooter was a female-to-male transgender shooter named Audrey Hale, aged 28, who left a manifesto before being killed by police.

Vivek Ramaswamy, running third in the GOP presidential primary, recently called for the manifesto’s release. He characterizes the government position as “stonewalled silence.”

Well, I generally believe that when government officials don’t want us to know something, it’s because they fear we would think or act in ways they wouldn’t like if we knew it.

They seldom keep things secret that would make them look good.

National Review’s Dan McLaughlin sees a double standard: “Why are these groups taking this stance? They are plainly afraid that it would be bad to use the shooter’s words because this might cause people to blame other people who share some of the shooter’s ideas. But this is exactly what these groups, and their media advocates, would be doing if the tables were turned.

“Every sentient adult knows that if a conservative, biblically orthodox Christian shot up a transgender institution, these same people and groups would be pushing the press (which would not need the pushing) to publish the manifesto, precisely so that they could discredit people who shared some of the shooter’s ideas.”

Well, if we’ve learned anything over the last few years, it’s not to expect political evenhandedness from the media or from many law-enforcement agencies.

[George K]

[Jolly]

"White privlages"? Sounds like a woke Democrat.

[Horace]

If it had been more politically useful to the left, it would have been released long before now.

[George K]

[George K]

[Horace]

Was it leaked, or released by authorities?

[George K]

@Horace leaked.

[Horace]

Unclear what her politics were. Her use of homophobic slurs indicates a likely Magat. I will await further information before judging.

[George K]

@Horace said in Should the manifesto be released?:

a likely Magat

Can you be Magat and say "Kill crackers?"

The intersectionality is all so confusing to me.