Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

nimh.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 264 posts

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#221

Post by dpkonofa »

pixelbath wrote: post #158
dpkonofa wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s not like we can stop the media from reporting on such things. Sure you can. Stop watching it. Tell your friends to stop watching it and why . The media nowadays is all about going over the top and sensationalizing things because that's what gets the eyeballs on the screens and that's where the advertisements get them money. Hurt their wallets and they'll stop.

Ok, I didn't watch it. I described it as "some teen drama series glorifying a girl who commits suicide" whenever the show was mentioned. I advised my kids (who are nearly adult age) that they shouldn't even bother with it (they didn't watch it). Did it work? There is far too much momentum behind mass-market media for this nearly passive resistance to be effective. Things like "'13 Reasons Why' linked to 29% increase…

>this nearly passive resistance to be effective

My entire point is to be active about the resistance. Don't just stop using something. Tell others to stop using and say why. Cease any and all contact with that media channel.

The only way this works is when the right thing to do also happens to be the profitable thing to do.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#222

Post by CompanionCuuube »

dowst wrote: post #164
mieseratte wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines. Not sure why you put quotes around constitutional freedom. The reason for the amendment is such that when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights you can kill them with the killing machine. As simple as that.

Bad people kill so kill bad people. So logical...

It's much more logical and moral to let the bad people kill you, so that you can maintain your integrity into death.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#223

Post by jakelazaroff »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #220
jakelazaroff wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me clarify: the reason that viewpoint is weird to me is that it's essentially political terrorism. A small minority of citizens are essentially saying "we want the law to be this way, and if it isn't, we will murder you ". But for some reason we've collectively decided that no, it's actually normal for people to dictate the law under threat of violence. The other side here is basically just people supporting and…

"A small minority of citizens are essentially saying "we want the law to be this way, and if it isn't, we will murder you". But for some reason we've collectively decided that no, it's actually normal for people to dictate the law under threat of violence." On the other hand, the moral majority can make the law and then murder people who don't follow it. This is called "democracy working normally".

I oppose capital punishment, but yes — that's how democracy works.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#224

Post by kinghajj »

mattmanser wrote: post #154
duxup wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR did a good story on a study that examined what shooters DO and DO NOT like. They like videos of chaos and screaming. They like their photo shown. They don't like stories about the victims that make the victims seem like they're human. What they were doing before the shootings, things they did with their lives, etc. They don't like stories about the community itself that aren't just about the event (shooting). I n…

Why shouldn't it be legally restricted? You're forced to wear seatbelts for safety reasons, why shouldn't you be forced to keep killers anonymous.

In the US, the 1st amendment and current case law don't support restricting that kind of speech. Only if there's an immediate, specific reaction, can the speech be curtailed, and even then it's difficult. Trying to incite a riot, for instance, can be restricted, as it could have the immediate effect of causing a riot in the area. Saying a mass shooter's name doesn't cause an immediate response, nor can you specifically say who or where will be affected, so under the current case law, cannot be restricted.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#225

Post by jshaqaw »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #155
jshaqaw wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Calling to organizations like Netflix to be aware of an issue and act responsibly is very different than calling for a ban on free speech. They made an artistic and ratings decision without being aware of the ramifications. Future studios should not make the same mistake.

The fact that suicides come in clusters almost like a contagious disease has been well known for a very long time. If Netflix was oblivious about that when they were working on the show, there was plenty of chance to become aware if they paid attention to the outcry before the show came out.

Reasonable point. Being ignorant of the details I gave Netflix the most generous benefit of doubt. The vast majority of people aren’t monsters and I doubt they would have done this intentionally.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#227

Post by dragonwriter »

mieseratte wrote: post #40
TheArcane wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Limit second amendment more to prevent more shootings. I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines.

> I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines. Not sure why you put quotes around constitutional freedom. The reason for the amendment is such that when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights you can kill them with the killing machine. As simple as that.

> The reason for the amendment is such that when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights you can kill them with the killing machine.

No, the reason for the amendment was the perception (possibly true) that reliance on citizens militias for internal and external security was an essential guarantee of liberty, as otherwise the government would have no choice but to rely on professional forces (army/police) that would become culturally distinct from the general population and become oppressive either on their own or on behalf of the government which would become more attached to it's security services through whuhbit applied force, and which could withhold that ability or use it in ways the political authority did not approve of unsatisfied, than the general public. Combined with the perception (false, as it turned out) that the only thing needed to protect this model was to assure that the government's understandable desire to regulate weaponry didn't make it impractical to rely on militias of the citizenry for this purpose.

The idea was that it would be impossible to oppress the general public if the government had to call up the general public to do the oppressing, whereas if there was a distinct warrior tribe whose whole profession was applying force as ordered by higher authority, the government would be much more able and inclined to be oppressive.

Unfortunately, even those who hold themselves out as defenders of the second amendment have forgotten it's purpose.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#228

Post by munk-a »

seiferteric wrote: post #202
munk-a wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Really though, we should be focusing on the root cause: lonely/sad/broken people. The US is an extreme outlier in terms of gun homicide in the first world, is the assumption that every country except the US has solved lonely/sad/broken people? The second amendment (the full reading of it) doesn't give carte blanch coverage to own firearms and the US populace agrees that, for instance, inmates in prison and domestic…

>Defenders of the second amendment often say it's an opposition to tyranny, but I fail to see how a hand-gun will help to protect you against an Abrams wielded by a tyrannous government - or should tanks, jets and battleships be objects that private citizens should be able to purchase and own for self-defense? You could say the same thing for the 1st amendment for individuals vs large media companies. Individuals wil…

I agree, gun familiarity training and regular usage would also, I believe, push guns into being more of a tool. It'd also be good for more social interaction to go along with gun ownership so that there is more of an inherent social web around gun users - most folks with guns are absolutely normal folks with no issues... interacting with others would indeed help flagging people who may be a danger and help them before something terrible happens.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#229

Post by sbierwagen »

Frondo wrote: post #88
sbierwagen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack 87 deaths from a truck ramming attack. The existing licensing system was obviously insufficient to prevent this attack. What do you suggest be done to prevent attacks like this in the future?

Bringing up one truck-based mass murder from 3 years ago in reply to a comment about US gun violence seems like whataboutism. If that's not your intent, can you clarify what your intent is? I'm probably not the only one who read it that way.

What causes mass shootings?

If it's motivated purely by the desire to shoot people with cool badass assault rifles, then banning things that look like assault rifles would solve it. If it's just the desire to shoot people, then you would have to ban all firearms.

However, if it's caused by the desire to kill, with no regard for the mechanism, then banning guns would have no or little effect: they would move to the next-easiest node in the attack tree.[1] If you ban all trucks, then attackers would try to burn down high rises, or poison water mains, or release sarin gas in subway stations, etc etc.

The observation that these other attacks are exotic and weird is only weak evidence for to the question if mass shootings are for the shooting, or the killing.

---

1: https://www.schneier.com/academic/archives/1999/12/attack_tr...

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#230

Post by CompanionCuuube »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #223
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A small minority of citizens are essentially saying "we want the law to be this way, and if it isn't, we will murder you". But for some reason we've collectively decided that no, it's actually normal for people to dictate the law under threat of violence." On the other hand, the moral majority can make the law and then murder people who don't follow it. This is called "democracy working normally".

I oppose capital punishment, but yes — that's how democracy works.

Yes, if you use a strict denotative definition of "works" as being a method of operation. But that says nothing as to the ethical justification relative to the other case that you complained about.

Your position just comes off as saying "in its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges".

Post reply on HN