Friday, 20 July 2012 Denver shooting at Batman Premiere:12 dead, 50 wounded quote [ There is one suspect in custody after 14 12 people were shot and killed at the Century 16 Movie Theaters at the Aurora Town Center. There were at least 50 people injured to Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates. ] The fuck? [by spazm@10:03amGMT] [+10 WTF]

buzhidao said @ 10:10am GMT on 20th Jul [Score:5 Funny] well that's some terrible viral marketing.

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:13pm GMT on 20th Jul I guess he had trouble getting a ticket for the premier.

cb361 said @ 9:36pm GMT on 20th Jul Everyone's a critic.

pleaides said @ 10:17am GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Insightful] IF ONLY BATMAN HAD HAD A GUN

swiggy said @ 10:24am GMT on 20th Jul [Score:4 Informative] Bruce Wayne's parents were shot and killed outside a theater showing Zorro. SOMEONE'S TRYING TO MAKE BATMAN.

assbastard said @ 11:47am GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2] Wouldn't it work the opposite way? Someone's trying to make Zorro?

incpenners said @ 11:52am GMT on 20th Jul [Score:5 Funny] Like Zorro!

assbastard said @ 11:54am GMT on 20th Jul RANCH

blacksun said @ 4:44pm GMT on 20th Jul LASER

moriati said @ 7:11pm GMT on 20th Jul LAZ0R

pleaides said @ 11:57pm GMT on 20th Jul I CAN TELL BY THE PIXELS

arrowhen said @ 3:40am GMT on 21st Jul Bend over, I'll something something.

EPT said @ 11:26am GMT on 20th Jul God damn, can the US please scale back the spree killers a bit?

pleaides said @ 11:40am GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Insightful] Spree killers aint shit without guns.

pleaides said @ 1:56pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Funny] "The "right to bear arms" is the real Bane of America." Salman Rushdie

nuc said @ 3:15pm GMT on 20th Jul You said Bane.

sanepride said @ 4:51pm GMT on 20th Jul At least he didn't say 'Bain'.

Rush Limbaugh said @ 2:20am GMT on 21st Jul Yes he did! It's liberal code for attacking Mitt Romney for being successful! Death to Ameri... er, Liberals!

(Take Two) said @ 3:24pm GMT on 20th Jul Will the Real Bane of America Please stand up Please stand up Please stand up

Seneki69 said @ 12:22am GMT on 21st Jul There's no way that wording could be misconstrued at all.

Mr. Langosta said @ 4:03pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Underrated] Challenge Accepted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster Yeah, he used a rifle to set off a car bomb, but that was a sideshow to the primary blast.

pleaides said @ 5:43am GMT on 21st Jul So you're saying that if he hadn't had a gun none of this could have happened??

loomspace said @ 1:30pm GMT on 20th Jul Apparently it was a German?

spazm said @ 1:43pm GMT on 20th Jul James Holmes sounds pretty german, right?

zieko said @ 5:33pm GMT on 20th Jul Looks French, no offense to the French of course

mrcucumber said @ 6:58pm GMT on 20th Jul Nah, teapartier. "...ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect.... ABC News Batman is a socialist in disguise.

assbastard said @ 7:09pm GMT on 20th Jul Except that was later debunked as false.

mrcucumber said @ 8:32pm GMT on 20th Jul I was joking

assbastard said @ 9:18pm GMT on 20th Jul That was later found to be true.

assbastard said @ 9:18pm GMT on 20th Jul (that you were joking.)

sanepride said @ 3:47pm GMT on 20th Jul Despite our record and notoriously lax gun ownership laws, it should be pointed out that the deadliest spree killings have taken place in Norway, South Korea, and Australia respectively. The US comes in at a miserable 4th place with the VA Tech massacre.

mrcucumber said @ 5:07pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Underrated] Isn't the idea to stay out of say, the top 10?

sanepride said @ 5:46pm GMT on 20th Jul Just pointing out that the gun-crazed USA doesn't hold anything like a monopoly on this phenomenon.

kichijoii said @ 12:42am GMT on 21st Jul That may be true, but I think it's presumed that we Americans set the standard for gun-crazy, and that if we changed course, others would take notice. Again, not that we are absolutely the craziest, but that we are the most prominent.

EPT said @ 3:22am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Informative] Outside of spree killing, looking at straight murder rates, you'd have to add South Korea (2.9/100k), Australia (1.1), and Norway (0.7) together just to match the US rate (4.8). Not that stats work that way, it's just bizarre that the US is so high that this can happen. The US rate is three to four times greater than other anglo countries in general (~1.1-1.8) and six times greater than western European countries (~0.8). There's definitely something wrong with the culture in the US that makes it more likely to express yourself with a firearm.

dudeman said @ 9:42pm GMT on 21st Jul

EPT said @ 3:19am GMT on 21st Jul The three examples you cite don't really have spree killers as a common occurrence. And if we want to get into the semantics, I said 'scale back a bit', not 'release the monopoly'. It's pretty clearly implied that I meant other people have spree killers too, but not with the scale the US does.

structured_spirits said @ 5:23pm GMT on 20th Jul Was the Virginia Tech guy an American or was he on a student visa from another country?

sanepride said @ 5:45pm GMT on 20th Jul Cho was a Korean national living in the US as a permanent resident. His family immigrated when he was a child.

structured_spirits said @ 9:09pm GMT on 20th Jul Meh that makes him a 'Merican culturally speaking.

pleaides said @ 12:06am GMT on 21st Jul So you guys get by far the most practice and still get beaten by amateurs? ;)

EPT said @ 3:01am GMT on 21st Jul Since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, which killed a whole 10% more than the "miserable 4th place", Australia has had no spree killers. The US, on the other had, has had a constant peppering of them (including the 4th place getter). I don't know about you, but I'd not trade that single '10% more' for a steady stream of other spree killers around 25-50% as bad (plus the occasional high scorer).

gunthar said @ 11:26am GMT on 20th Jul dat terrorism

Kurisu said @ 11:30am GMT on 20th Jul ?? ...the movie is THAT bad that they have to shoot people to get more advertising for it?

assbastard said @ 11:51am GMT on 20th Jul [Score:3 Insightful] Some men just want to watch the world burn.

spazm said @ 12:05pm GMT on 20th Jul I read that in a Hollywood-kind of voice

assbastard said @ 12:10pm GMT on 20th Jul It was a line that Michael Caine delivered as Alfred in The Dark Knight (about The Joker).

spazm said @ 12:17pm GMT on 20th Jul Ah, heheh. That'll teach me to not watch Batman movies.

-_- said @ 11:15am GMT on 21st Jul Fun Fact: Say "my cocaine" out loud and it sounds like Michael Caine saying his own name.

citizenQ said @ 9:24pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]

kichijoii said @ 12:43am GMT on 21st Jul Wow I'd forgotten about that comic. Kind of fell apart for me after they added more characters.

EPT said @ 4:24am GMT on 21st Jul I'd forgotten about that comic because of it's infrequent release cycle...

IBM said @ 7:22pm GMT on 21st Jul you just reminded me to go look at oglaf comics

radioelectric said @ 10:22pm GMT on 20th Jul I'm taking a throwaway joke too seriously but this pissed me off because it was probably exactly what this guy was going for.

Rapscallion said @ 12:30pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Underrated] Did they get a refund for the tickets??

ENZ said @ 12:39pm GMT on 20th Jul Is there some way we can blame Rush Limbaugh for this?

mrcucumber said @ 1:08pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2] It's Rush Limbaugh's fault. He did it. Done.

assbastard said @ 1:24pm GMT on 20th Jul That had about as much research and fact checking as Limbaugh's verbal diarrhea about Bane/Bain, so yeah.

ComposerNate said @ 1:42pm GMT on 20th Jul If not for Rush Limbaugh, there would not longer be need for guns.

kichijoii said @ 12:46am GMT on 21st Jul Well, everytime I pass by the billboard advertising Limbaugh as "Sacramento's finest export," I want to get a gun. Does that count?

CapnSilver said @ 1:16pm GMT on 20th Jul So. Let's talk about gun laws again. I always like this argument. We should also bring it up every time there's a positive news story about gun ownership. But I guess it's just a media conspiracy, right?

zenviper said @ 1:26pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Insightful] This wouldn't have happened if we had the TSA at movie theaters.

sanepride said @ 2:41pm GMT on 20th Jul We will now.

mrcucumber said @ 5:39pm GMT on 20th Jul 'Dark Knight' shooting leaves theaters scrambling to address security concerns

sanepride said @ 5:47pm GMT on 20th Jul Yep. I'm reminded of the calls to ban trench coats following the Columbine massacre.

sythe said @ 5:50pm GMT on 20th Jul I go to an actual theater about twice a year. Security at movie theaters would make me stop going. I'm sure they won't miss my $20.

mrcucumber said @ 6:36pm GMT on 20th Jul In Mexico you have to go through a metal detector to get into a casino, which contain bars, restaurants, etc. They got used to it enough to get their gambling fix, I'm sure americans will get used to it for their blockbuster movies.

radioelectric said @ 8:45pm GMT on 20th Jul Eventually the metal detectors will be on the entrance to Society. You will have to walk through them to leave your house.

Ankylosaur said @ 10:57pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 WTF] Metal detectors in front of every vulva! No babies may enter the world armed.

kichijoii said @ 12:47am GMT on 21st Jul Wow, just when I thought that joke couldn't get any crazier, there you were! Bravo, good sir, bravo.

Naruki said @ 2:23am GMT on 21st Jul Just wait till they build the detectors into condoms...

arrowhen said @ 3:36am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 WTF] Mandatory thalidomide!

sanepride said @ 6:44pm GMT on 20th Jul You realize of course ticket prices will have to go up to cover the cost of the security.

mrcucumber said @ 6:52pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Funny] For $20 fucking dollars a movie they better goddamn have navy seals there.

Kurisu said @ 6:13pm GMT on 20th Jul Oh, great... BCS's and TSA pat-downs... I get enough of that when I fly...

backSLIDER said @ 8:23pm GMT on 20th Jul And all the "pot head" movies go strait to video... I'm strangly ok with this idea. Who wantsto see how high in 12 foot high glory?

edga alunpo said @ 1:38pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Underrated] This sort of thing gets me. I mean what a lack of fantasy! if you're going to run amok, lets have some decent news coverage showing a guy on horseback charging a crowd with a pick-axe or someone driving a tank through a church or, or, or, something... automatic rifle!.... how boring! everybody has one in the states!

bltrocker said @ 2:37pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Underrated] Killdozer

insanemonkey said @ 6:54pm GMT on 20th Jul

assbastard said @ 1:42pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Insightful] They lowered the death toll from 14 to 12. How did that happen? Two words: Lazarus Pit.

pleaides said @ 1:44pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Informative] I just saw this on twitter and had to let you guys know. This is the blog of one of the victims of the shooting: http://jessicaredfield.wordpress.com/ The first paragraph reads as follows; "I can’t get this odd feeling out of my chest. This empty, almost sickening feeling won’t go away. I noticed this feeling when I was in the Eaton Center in Toronto just seconds before someone opened fire in the food court. An odd feeling which led me to go outside and unknowingly out of harm‘s way. It’s hard for me to wrap my mind around how a weird feeling saved me from being in the middle of a deadly shooting." Pretty chilling, if true.

pleaides said @ 1:49pm GMT on 20th Jul Guns don’t kill people. It is amazing how many murderers like to carry them around though.

danshyu said @ 8:00pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-1 Overrated] Well it's that silly argument again. Not all gun owners are murderers, but all murderers carry guns. Sounds familiar? Hint: similar argument was made to an entire ethnic of people.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 8:56pm GMT on 20th Jul "Gun owner" is not an ethnicity.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 8:58pm GMT on 20th Jul Also ethnicities aren't used as tools for the killing.

danshyu said @ 10:08pm GMT on 20th Jul Religious extremists certainly do use their interpretations of their religious believe as an excuse and motivation for killing. It's just as dangerous if not more so than the weapons themselves in many ways. It's a lot easier to disarm people of their weapons, than to actually pacify one's violent ideology. But either way, I don't believe in guilty by association.

Naruki said @ 1:58am GMT on 21st Jul Really? You ever tried taking guns away from Americans?

cb361 said @ 10:08am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:3 Funny] It's easy. You just shoot them in the back of the head when they're not expecting it. And then take it from their cold, dead hands.

Naruki said @ 7:00pm GMT on 21st Jul Got the perfect distraction, too: look behind you, it's a liberal coming for your guns!

cb361 said @ 7:55pm GMT on 21st Jul It's so cute when they think that their guns protect them.

happiest_sadist said @ 11:01am GMT on 22nd Jul I forget how many people I have told: Having a gun does not make you bulletproof.

arctan said @ 2:43am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:2] Weapons are actual physical devices intended for killing people. If you want to make it harder to kill people, you do so by limiting access to weapons, to whatever degree is feasible. This is not really all that complex an issue. I don't believe all gun owners are guilty of murder, for Christ's sake -- that's a strawman if I ever heard one -- but I do believe that making it easy to own a gun makes it easy to murder people. And I think that intentionally making the ownership of a tool for killing people akin to an ideology or cultural identity -- as the NRA exists to do -- is really fucked up. It's fucked up the way people deciding it's part of their "identity" to not get vaccinated is fucked up.

pleaides said @ 2:11am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:2 Insightful] Guns don’t kill people. People who say “Guns don’t kill people” kill people. With guns.

GordonGuano said @ 1:54pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Insightful] Of course, Death won't be cheated. This just means she'll succumb to some incredibly contrived mechanical failure within 90 minutes.

spazm said @ 1:56pm GMT on 20th Jul That post is from the 5th of june though...

pleaides said @ 1:58pm GMT on 20th Jul The Red God is patient.

EPT said @ 2:54pm GMT on 20th Jul The Red God is the crappest plot device in the series. Perhaps it's done better in the book, but "hey, this character can call on a deus ex machina that doesn't touch the story anywhere else"... meh.

pleaides said @ 3:00pm GMT on 20th Jul I agree it's clumsy, but he's also behind Jaquin Hagar and alot of the stuff that Tyrion witnesses both on sea and in the various cities with Jorah Mormont. And yes, it's done much more deftly in the books, unsurprisingly.

GordonGuano said @ 3:52pm GMT on 20th Jul "Not today" was a great line, though.

foobar said @ 9:23pm GMT on 20th Jul It is done much better in the books, and it's easy to miss the bits that explain it in the series. Arya saves Jaqen (and the other two in the cage) when the Night's Watch convoy is attacked, by letting them out. Jaqen repays that with three assassinations of her choice. It gets expanded on greatly later. Also, notice that Arya's "dancing" master and Jaqen are both from Braavos.

Spaceloaf said @ 12:58am GMT on 21st Jul It's done significantly better in the book. In fact, there's some question about how many of the events attributed to the Red God are actually real miracles as opposed to just illusions and trickery. There are also many different people/factions that claim to serve the Red God, and some of them don't seem to be very compatible with each other. I expect the lack of congruency to be a major plot point later on, although so far the series hasn't covered very much of it.

pleaides said @ 1:59pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:3 WTF] Sorry, I didn't make the facts clear. This girl died today, she posted this after witnessing a similar shooting not long ago.

spazm said @ 2:20pm GMT on 20th Jul Thanks, I missed that. Chilling indeed.

pleaides said @ 2:25pm GMT on 20th Jul I don't think you missed it, really, I failed to spell it out clearly.

sanepride said @ 2:45pm GMT on 20th Jul I will withhold judgement on the veracity of this story until the list of victims of this shooting actually becomes public.

pleaides said @ 3:04pm GMT on 20th Jul Of course, and I doffed my hat to that when I said "if true" at the end there. It came out only about an hour and a half after the news of the shooting did, which is pretty damn quick, and therefore suspect. Conversely, I've seen many tweets from folks purporting to be her friends expressing their shock at the news. If this IS her, and it's all true, then we'll hear no end of it I'm sure, mainly from idiots claiming that she was somehow spookily prescient or something similar.

CiViX said @ 3:21pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Informative] Seems that her death is confirmed... https://twitter.com/bustedcoverage/statuses/226274146043170817 She's gained a couple of thousand new followers on Twitter after they tweeted about her being killed. People.

sanepride said @ 4:04pm GMT on 20th Jul OK. Also reported on local news media.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 6:20pm GMT on 20th Jul http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/colorado-shooting-victim-narrowly-missed-eaton-centre-shooting/article4429853/

rangerx said @ 1:51pm GMT on 20th Jul http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1f725cd110/the-dark-knight-gets-carried

King of the Hill said @ 2:22pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:3 Insightful] Can I ask a somewhat unrelated question? Why the fuck do you bring a 3 month old to a movie? Not just a 12am showing, but any fucking movie for that matter?

pleaides said @ 2:25pm GMT on 20th Jul Where else would you suggest a parent leave the baby? At the bar perhaps?

Cakkafracle said @ 2:31pm GMT on 20th Jul bar-b-sitter?

Transfer said @ 2:42pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:3 Insightful] In case this is a serious question. I would suggest, 1) hiring a baby-sitter 2) leaving the child with a family member or trusted family friend. 3) NOT GOING TO THE FUCKING MOVIE.

pleaides said @ 2:50pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-1 Overrated] A child that old wouldn't be any trouble at all at a movie provided one attended at a time when the baby would usually be sleeping, which isn't that hard to arrange. You sit beside the exit so you can scoot right out in case the baby makes any noise. Perhaps you haven't had as much experience with this as I have (not trying to be patronising here) but between dusk and dawn babies generally do fuck all, so why do you feel that it would be necessary to require a parent like myself to make extra arrangements just to go and see a damn film. Seriously, are you advocating not allowing babies into a cinema? toddlers i can understand, there's no way you'd get them to shut up or sit down, but babies are fine.

Cakkafracle said @ 2:57pm GMT on 20th Jul yes, I would agree with that. no babies in the theatre. unless its one of those fancy ones with the crying rooms... Sealed theatre rooms with a big glass window for parents to bring the squablers

sanepride said @ 3:01pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:5 Insightful] In my experience babies are random screaming machines that considerate parents should never foist on the public in situations where random screaming might be disruptive. True that this isn't necessarily true of all babies, but there is an unfortunate phenomenon among newly reproducing hipsters in the general region I live in of trying to continue with their hipster lives of going to bars, restaurants and movies and just hauling the youngster along as an accessory, oblivious to the discomfort this creates for their fellow patrons. People should not take babies to movie theaters period. Although there are some theaters I've heard that now offer special 'baby-friendly' matinees, which seems like a good idea.

traitor said @ 4:45pm GMT on 20th Jul Newborn babies are actually pretty easy to keep quiet, especially if Mom is around and she's breastfeeding them. I used to just keep my kids in their car-seats wherever I went and kept a bottle handy. (I don't even think newborn babies are that loud when they cry, but I know it gets under some people's skin.) It's when they get a little older that it gets trickier. 1 - 3 is a way tougher age to try to do stuff. Of course if a child is being very disruptive for more than a few minutes, then you take them out of the area, that's just common courtesy, and I always did that. I never get why people give a fuck what other people do with their kids - It's not your responsibility? If a kid is crying or whatever, it doesn't have anything to do with you. Just treat it like a fire engine is going by. Bars in my city are definitely NOT baby friendly so that never came up. But no babies in restaurants? That's nuts. Human beings reproduce, get over it. And again - you don't have to do a thing, so don't worry about it.

sanepride said @ 4:59pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:3 Underrated] Sorry, no. When the screaming starts, it DOES have something to do with me, and everyone else who has to listen to it. This is a form of environmental disruption akin to smoking a big cigar. By all means, reproduce...but recognize that once you have done so your life and lifestyle has changed. Please behave accordingly.

traitor said @ 5:13pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:-5 Troll] Sorry, no. Just because somebody reproduces doesn't mean they have to quarantine themselves for ten years because there are some people out there that super proud of their over-sensitivity and wear it like a badge of superiority. I know my lifestyle has changed, but I don't tailor it to suit people who get their fucking panties in a bunch over every minor inconvenience. Fuck those assholes - THEY can stay home if life bothers them that much. By the way, feel free to smoke whatever you want around me, doesn't bother me one bit.

paul_austin0816 said @ 5:25pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:3 Underrated] well that's a lovely attitude, welcome to the age of entitlement. The trouble is other people are out to relax and dont want to hear your whiney sniveling screaming little brat. YOU made the choice of having a child, grow up and pay the price. Get a babysitter, don't make everyone else pay the price just because you are selfish

sanepride said @ 5:26pm GMT on 20th Jul Of course it does set a nice example for the kids.

traitor said @ 5:38pm GMT on 20th Jul But wait, how is not being able to put up with the noise of someone else's child for a minute at a restaurant not an example of this "age of entitlement" you speak of? Also, decades ago, before the "age of entitlement" started people had tons of kids and they were all over the place. Now most people have one or two and that's considered a major inconvenience for everyone who feels "entitled" to absolute silence with their never-ending hedonism. (I have nothing against never-ending hedonism, but I have noticed it makes some people pretty intolerant as they get into their 40's and beyond.)

traitor said @ 5:47pm GMT on 20th Jul Let me be clear, if your kid is literally SCREAMING in a restaurant, yeah then you whisk them out as fast as possible. (How often does this happen? I can't remember ever seeing a child SCREAM in a restaurant. My kids have never done that certainly.)

King of the Hill said @ 6:03pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:5] I've seen many parents with screaming toddlers or screeching toddlers in restaurants or on planes... and they do nothing about it. I have a 21 month old... She is a super calm, quiet kid most days. We cautiously took her out to restaurants. She would hardly squawk and if she did chirp a puff (infant food snack) or something would quell it... A couple of months ago she entered a new phase where she wants to be into everything and getting noisier about it.... I started to pick her up from her high chair and carry her to the lobby - so that she could check out the people and pictures on the wall... She is now at a point where we are hesitant to bring her out to eat as it ruins the experience for us as one of us has to take her on strolls on and off during the meal. I'm sure that will pass. We decided as parent's that we were not going to inflict our child's behavior on others... even if it is normal toddler behavior. I certainly would never have brought her to the movies at 3 months or would I now. Two months back we went out to eat with out of town family. There was a girl - maybe 3 or 4 years old screeching and making awful amounts of noise at the table next to us... Her mother did shit to quiet/calm her. Meanwhile, the same mother watched me pick up our daughter every time she got restless and go for a walk... People are assholes. And if you ask the older generations... no they didn't go out to eat as much back in the day and therefore didn't bring kids into restaurants like that... Least that has been the feedback I have gotten.

assbastard said @ 6:07pm GMT on 20th Jul Thank you for being a considerate parent. I feel the need to say that, being one of those people that dislikes unruly children.

traitor said @ 6:18pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Insightful] Yeah, that's what we did. That's what most parents do. At 21 months you're definitely in a tough age for eating out. I think originally we were talking about a three month old - you can do anything with the average three month old. Some parents are negligent/inconsiderate. Some people freak out when they hear the slightest gurgle from a baby seat and can't "relax" around children. Hell is other people.

King of the Hill said @ 7:46pm GMT on 20th Jul I think most people don't mind the baby gurgles and antics... I never have cared and now as a parent find those little behavior things sweet remindes of when my daughter was much younger than even now. I will say that not eating out as much ( not that we ever really did) does save some $$$$.. so fuck it.

spite48 said @ 8:28pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Insightful] I am a parent of two well-behaved young children. They've rarely been a problem in restaurants (although the ~21 month point was a problem for each of them, certainly.) I think the most insightful things said in this thread relate to both parents and childless people feeling entitled to disregard the situation of others. My expectations are as follows: 1) Parents of children will try to socialize their children in such a way that they are considerate of others. A 2 year old isn't going to get that they have to be quiet in a restaurant, but a 3 year old should. 2) Parents should be entitled to take their kids to movie theaters, fancy restaurants and other places where there is a reasonable expectation of serenity, but if their children get inordinately disruptive, then they should immediately quell the disruption, or remove the children. Sometimes you just have to go. In the meantime others should give the parents a bit of courtesy, and give the parents a chance to try reasoning with the kids before expecting that they remove the child from the environment. 3) In places where there is no reasonable expectation of serenity (burger joints, family restaurants, buses and public places), people should expect that kids will make noise. Kids are noisy. It's about as useful getting upset about kids making noise in a burger joint as it is getting upset about the crazy homeless man yelling in the alley.

snowfox said @ 11:00pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Underrated] I agree with 1 and 2, but not 3. If they are in a park, playground, field, etc or in an establishment that caters specifically to children, it is fine for them to run around and make lots of noise. If they are in any other sort of public place, I expect the parents to make an attempt at teaching them appropriate public behavior instead of shrugging their shoulders and giving up. There will be times that a kid has a meltdown and I understand that. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with parents who take that as leave to not even try to do something about it. Any time the kids are in a public place and just will not stop shrieking, they need to be taken outside, to a bathroom -- anywhere else -- so that the parent can try to get control of the situation again. In any public place where kids are not expected to be running around, they absolutely should not be running around. It poses a hazard to both the child and other people. Whenever I see kids running around in any restaurant, I rightly fear for their safety. Servers carry heavy trays full of cutlery, glassware, and hot food, all of which could easily get dumped on some kid's head because their parents couldn't be bothered to parent.

spite48 said @ 5:02am GMT on 21st Jul I agree, and if that isn't clear I just was simplifying my view for brevity. It obviously depends on the nature of the public place, and the nature of the behavior. Kids talking and laughing on a bus is okay, crying on a bus is unfortunate, but I'm not going to expect the parents to get off and catch the next one. Running or fighting on the bus isn't reasonable or safe.

Naruki said @ 2:08am GMT on 21st Jul Mostly disagree with 2. If you cannot be sure your kid will behave, you do not go to fancy restaurants and the like. You go to fucking Denny's or McDonalds or Olive Garden. If you DO go, and your child "surprises" you with annoying (to others) behavior, then you get them the fuck out of there until they calm down. AND you have the fucking decency to be ashamed for your behavior (not your kid's). Because as an adult, you don't do shit like that unless you simply have no regard for others. Or are you one of those people who think it's okay to chat on your phone during a stand up comedy routine?

spite48 said @ 5:00am GMT on 21st Jul If I bring a four year old to a fancy restaurant, and the kid doesn't usually cause a problem, but does on this instance but I take steps to control the situation, how is that any different from a person whose date makes a scene and leaves, or a person who accidentally forgets to turn off their cell phone and turns the ringer off? Fancy restaurants aren't adult only, unless they prohibit children. The kids are expected to behave, and I've already conceded that it's reasonable to expect that parents including myself will control any unreasonable situation or leave if the behavior cannot be brought and maintained to a reasonable standard. Kids aren't going to learn that different places have different expectations of behavior unless you expose them to libraries and fancy restaurants as well as parks and family restaurants.

monkeynuts said @ 2:33am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:3 Funny] Did... ...did Naruki and Snowfox just kind of sort of agree on something sort of maybe?

sanepride said @ 6:32pm GMT on 20th Jul Damned liberals and their indulgent 'it takes a village' mentality, am I right? This is one thing conservatives get right! ;)

snowfox said @ 7:13pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Underrated] You are correct. I was discussing it with my father and it used to be that going to a restaurant and the movies was special. My parents either didn't go or hired a babysitter when they did. I didn't get to start going out to the movies until I was old enough to sit still and shut up.

lilmookieesquire said @ 7:06pm GMT on 20th Jul "Family Restaurant"

Khafra said @ 1:42pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:-1 Funny] You've actually inspired me, here. I bought a parametric speaker recently. Next time some self-entitled parent thinks only the proudly over-sensitive would object to their little bundle of joy screaming unceasingly, they're getting a personal sound envelope of Skrillex at 120db. I mean, they can stay home if life bothers them that much, right?

King of the Hill said @ 6:12pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:-4] Khafra? You live?

Khafra said @ 8:07pm GMT on 22nd Jul [Score:-2 Insightful] Heh, didn't think anybody here would remember me. Yup; the smoother interface of reddit, and its ability to be rendered truly SFW lured me away for a while; but there's much less eternal september back here at SE.

cb361 said @ 9:31pm GMT on 20th Jul I think people should only take their young children with them to see horror and torture-porn movies. Then, their screaming and crying will help add to the overall atmosphere of the film. Everyone's a winner.

mrcucumber said @ 5:05pm GMT on 20th Jul You mean like when my upstairs neighbor once said when her 3 year old was "breaking in" her new shoes running back and forth, with no carpet at 8 am on Sunday morning? Just 'Get over it"? 'Just what am I supposed to do? She's three." the twit said. You live three blocks from a major city park, lady. Go there. Do 3 year olds count as "baby"? It's when the parents problem becomes everybody else's problem, with no personal responsibility to modify their own behavior. For some parents ( since their sense of time is warped anyway), a few minutes of baby screaming turns into 10 or more, and they don't know when to leave.

traitor said @ 5:15pm GMT on 20th Jul I would say that's a little different, because you're in your house. That parent is being inconsiderate.

sanepride said @ 5:25pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Insightful] Helpful hint- consideration for others does extend beyond the boundaries of the home. Of course I fully realize that tips on considerate behavior are wasted on the chronically inconsiderate.

traitor said @ 5:42pm GMT on 20th Jul So your definition of considerate is sniffing and rolling your eyes when somebody else is trying to deal with an unruly child?

sanepride said @ 5:51pm GMT on 20th Jul Let's say hypothetically that it is. Certainly that would be far less disruptive than the unruly child.

traitor said @ 6:00pm GMT on 20th Jul OK. Can I still put you down as a "Yes" for my youngest's fourth birthday party next week? He should be over his Impetigo by then...

sanepride said @ 6:29pm GMT on 20th Jul OK, so long as it's understood that desensitizing adult refreshments will be served.

traitor said @ 6:55pm GMT on 20th Jul That's a given for sure. You know, they also sell desensitizing adult refreshments at restaurants :)

Naruki said @ 2:11am GMT on 21st Jul Maybe you should STOP taking such. You have already gone below and beyond where you should be.

hellboy said @ 5:00pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Underrated] I think we need breeder/non-breeder sections, just like the old smoking segregation.

eIfish said @ 8:33pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Interesting] A lot of cinemas in Britain do do breeders' screenings. The tickets are cheaper, but you have to bring a young child. Recent parents get a more supportive environment, and everyone else gets a quieter movie.

feldenglas said @ 3:04pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:3] Parent of 3 speaking here, yeah, no babies at the movies. Just common courtesy.

pleaides said @ 3:11pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Underrated] Interesting responses. I'd say that it's common courtesy to stop any noise or disruption at the cinema, and if the baby does any of those things then I'm out like a shot. Provided there's no such disruption I can't see what you're all so worried about. If we're all terrified about noise in the cinema I'd suggest that the first thing we should ban would be anyone between the ages of 11 and 20 and foil packets of anything at all. They cause me much more concern at a cinema than a baby ever has, either mine or anyone else's.

Cakkafracle said @ 3:20pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2] yes to all those things

sanepride said @ 4:12pm GMT on 20th Jul You're particularly fortunate your wee one is quieter and calmer than most. But not knowing this in advance, you can be sure I'd flash you the evil eye if I spotted you toting little pleaides into any cinema I was also attending.

spite48 said @ 5:09am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:2 Underrated] Parents get a lot of those evil eyes these days. You'd be surprised how many mean looks my boys get when I take them to the library just by virtue of being young boys, based on the assumptions about how disruptive they will be. Then they whisper to me, and I get looks of relief which don't help me to explain to my kids why the mean old man was glaring at them.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 8:25am GMT on 21st Jul Good on you. I'd certainly like to see more kids at libraries.

happiest_sadist said @ 10:58am GMT on 22nd Jul [Score:1 Original] My local library has a sign posted, which I will paraphrase: "PLEASE DON'T SHUSH This is a public space for exchange of ideas, for art and for fun, and for undirected play. Children are welcome. Groups are welcome." It goes on further in that vein, I disremember the rest. There are four "quiet study" rooms available for those who want quiet, and a conference room available for groups. In practice the place is generally quiet, which I put down to peoples' idea of what a public library ought to be like. It's a very nice place.

pleaides said @ 11:06am GMT on 22nd Jul +1 Disremember

verycleanteeth said @ 6:37pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Insightful] There's a reason they ask you to turn off cell phones at the beginning of a movie but not when you enter a restaurant. Restaurants are often noisy and filled with people chatting. Movies are about immersion and escape. If a phone goes off or a baby starts crying it pulls you out of the experience. Even if you quickly exit the theater or quickly silence your phone you're still messing up the experience for others.

eIfish said @ 8:36pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Underrated] That's a good rule of thumb: if it's not a restaurant you'd get out your cellphone in, it's not a restaurant to be bringing children to.

Phaedrine said @ 12:09am GMT on 21st Jul Unfortunately, there are still too many assholes who pull out their cellphones at nice restaurants.

lalanda said @ 12:27am GMT on 21st Jul And yet I don't appreciate the smell of baby shit at a restaurant. Leave your kids at home or go to Chuck E. Cheese.

snowfox said @ 2:43am GMT on 21st Jul I've had the same experience in theaters. It's an issue of consideration. If they would just take their kid to the bathroom and change them, it would be fine. But for some parents their movie or dinner conversation is more important than the comfort of their baby and other people around them.

kichijoii said @ 1:01am GMT on 21st Jul It's wonderful that you're so chill about babies, but your last point is a straw man. What we're worried about isn't just noise, it's noise that can't be quieted easily. We can basically tell anyone between 11 and 20 to shut up or get the fuck out, because anyone within that age range is responsible for one's own noises. A baby is delicate, ambiguous territory - the baby isn't responsible, and the parent is at best indirectly so. I also believe that parents of babies tend to be touchier when dealt with, especially if they are inconsiderate people to begin with. That is why many persons would rather not risk the scenario at all.

pleaides said @ 1:10am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Insightful] I'm relaxed about them because I've had a few. I'd be out like a shot if I had a baby that was being even the slightest bit disruptive. By which I mean well before the crying begins. Anyone who doesn't do that is guilty of simple rudenes, which is the actual problem here imho. be it a noisy baby, a cellphone, or talking in the movie, it's the rudeness that's at issue here, the baby is just a vehicle.

sanepride said @ 4:58am GMT on 21st Jul So what you're saying is- Babies don't annoy people, people who don't bring their crying babies outside annoy people.

spite48 said @ 7:10am GMT on 21st Jul No, it's people who are annoyed by people who don't bring their crying babies outside who annoy people by, um, not bringing their crying babies outside.

paul_austin0816 said @ 4:23pm GMT on 20th Jul yeah I'm sure the loud booming soundtrack and cheering audience wouldnt bother the infant at al. And if it did I'm sure this responsible adult would take the baby right out as to not inconvienience the rest of the theatre...um yeah and I'm also sure that noone would throw a tear gas container into a crowded movie theatre on opening night of a big film and then proceede to shoot people with an automatic weapon. I guess this moron is now free to go to midnight showings whenever he wants now if he lived. Honestly the fucking theatre should not have let him bring the baby in, and while I'm at it I suppose I have to say they should have also caught the weapon.

paul_austin0816 said @ 4:26pm GMT on 20th Jul Ok I will correct myself as the shooting was actually outside the theatre there was nothing to catch as far as the weapon goes but my baby rant stands

sanepride said @ 4:49pm GMT on 20th Jul This shooting occurred inside the theater while the movie was showing. Reports are that a back door was propped open, suggesting that's how the heavily-armed shooter entered. Nevertheless, movie theaters generally don't screen patrons for weapons or other contraband.

pleaides said @ 1:14am GMT on 21st Jul Babies actually sleep better in a noisy environment. I can only say that I would get out immediately if my baby made even the slightest mewling sound.

Naruki said @ 2:17am GMT on 21st Jul I was watching The Avengers recently when a baby let rip because the fucking explosions scared the shit out of it (possibly literally). I felt bad for the kid at the same time I was cursing the stupid parent for bringing it. She took it out immediately, but it was too late. Damage done. Sometimes they sleep better, sometimes they don't. Even the same baby isn't always as predictable as you make it sound, let alone ALL babies. Don't bring a baby to an adult movie. Period.

eIfish said @ 8:23pm GMT on 20th Jul The movie's rated 12. 0.25 < 12.

mrcucumber said @ 2:46pm GMT on 20th Jul They have baby days in theaters in NYC, usually a matinee so that they can bring strollers, breastfeed, and put up with overall babyness and crying and screaming and smelling without affecting other, non-parent moviegoers, and still see adult films.

EPT said @ 2:55pm GMT on 20th Jul wait wait wait wait wait... children, seeing adult films!? this is a consbreastutional crisis!

sanepride said @ 4:14pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Informative] I'm guessing he means 'grown-up' films, not 'ADULT' films. Not that I would object, never too early to get an education of sorts.

EPT said @ 2:41am GMT on 21st Jul if nothing else, I thought that the penultimate word was proof against Poe's Law.

chold_numa said @ 10:49pm GMT on 20th Jul To annoy other patrons.

lalanda said @ 12:32am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Underrated] When I go to the cinema I'm paying for everyone in the theatre to shut up and turn their cell phones off. Babies don't belong there. And they often don't sleep through the sound of SFX explosions and shooting. Taking a baby to a theatre is astonishingly selfish. Personally, I try to go to the over 21 screenings we have here. A wondrous invention.

arrowhen said @ 3:28am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Informative] When I go to the cinema I'm paying for everyone in the theatre to shut up and turn their cell phones off. And show up on time so you're not stepping on my feet and shoving your ass in my face during the opening scene. And if you're too stupid or deaf to follow the plot without asking your companion to explain shit to you, wait a day or two and download it. In fact, unless you're bleeding or on fire, there's no excuse for speaking during a movie. Unless it's a horror movie and you're black, because then you're half the fun.

GordonGuano said @ 4:22am GMT on 21st Jul When Wes Craven's New Nightmare came out, I didn't know that was a thing. Sat two rows in front of a gaggle of black college girls. At the first scream, I accidentally inhaled half a Twizzler.

Naruki said @ 1:59am GMT on 21st Jul I had the same damn question.

Cakkafracle said @ 2:34pm GMT on 20th Jul in regards to this cyclical Second Amendment debate thing, you know what's gonna be awesome? When the Left to bear arms. then both sides ares armed and all hell's breaking loose.

Bodnoirbabe said @ 2:39pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:3 Underrated] I'm glad the shooter didn't off himself. I hate it when they do that. Not that I'm frothing at the mouth for his death or anything, but perhaps the victims will get some sort of closure when he discusses why he did it. Obviously he was crazy, but it will probably be better to hear it from his own mouth then to put it together from manifestos and shit left at his house. Does that make any sense?

Transfer said @ 2:45pm GMT on 20th Jul It does. And I agree with you.

pleaides said @ 2:52pm GMT on 20th Jul Yeah, good point. I also like to see them robbed of their opportunity to go 'down on a blaze of glory' (if you'll forgive the expression). The universal opprobrium that will fall on this idiot might help discourage others who might be on the verge of considering such an act.

assbastard said @ 6:00pm GMT on 20th Jul Makes perfect sense. Of course, they have to disarm the explosives at his apartment before they can get anything from it. It seems like he WANTED to be captured, really, from hearing that he surrendered without resisting. Very curious.

mrcucumber said @ 6:33pm GMT on 20th Jul Drugs. Drugs I tell you. He was on drugs.

sanepride said @ 6:42pm GMT on 20th Jul OMG. BATH SALTS!!

cb361 said @ 8:16pm GMT on 20th Jul That's what I used to think, but then they took Anders Behring Breivik alive, and suddenly we've got to hear the smug, dickless ass-wipe mouthing off in court.

Bodnoirbabe said @ 2:42pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Insightful] I have to say, I'm a little bit taken aback by all the silly comments. Usually news like this is treated with more seriousness on SE. It seems odd to me.

Transfer said @ 2:47pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:3 Insightful] I think SE is a little burned out on Spree Killers. And to cope a lot of us turn to humor.

GordonGuano said @ 2:50pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:5 Funny] Which is why when I finally snap, it'll be at an Adam Sandler movie's opening night. It'll be the funniest thing that happens there that night.

sanepride said @ 3:04pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Insightful] Sometimes a little levity is the best way to deal with senseless tragedy.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 7:26pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Insightful] Words from the Master about ways to deal with senseless tragedy. No, really, give a listen.

EPT said @ 3:12pm GMT on 20th Jul Years ago I posted an article where an off-duty cop in the US spree-killed six people. It was downmodded because it was 'boring'.

sanepride said @ 4:42pm GMT on 20th Jul Are you talking about this post? Looks like it do OK mod-wise (no 'boring' mods btw) so quit whining. Also, this crime sounds more like a domestic violence rampage rather than a typical random spree shooting.

EPT said @ 2:48am GMT on 21st Jul It was that post, and my memory is fallible. There is though someone saying 'this is not unusual, please don't post it'. Also, killing six people in one sitting is a spree killing, regardless of motive.

eIfish said @ 4:49am GMT on 21st Jul This one's notable because the killer evidently did his homework and selected a target very intelligently. I can't wait to see Bruce Schneier's response, which I predict will boil down to "I told you so, you're just moving the threat to things that aren't airports" crossed with "stop reacting to stuff that's a one-off".

Mr. Langosta said @ 3:44pm GMT on 20th Jul "Whoa, what's with all this venom in the snake pit?"

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:27pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Insightful] I don't see how taking it completely seriously is a virtue in this case. (assuming you aren't related to one of the victims somehow) But lacking that, there seems to be no political motive to it... There's nobody trying to use it to blame videogames etc... There's really no reason for someone to dress up like a movie character and go on a shooting rampage. Some guy snapped and committed senseless violence. It's not the first or last time it's going to happen. Sometimes all you can do is crack some jokes and get on with your life.

foobar said @ 9:01pm GMT on 20th Jul It's just a bit too absurd to take seriously.

Didel said @ 9:05pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Funny] WHY SO SERIOUS?!

pleaides said @ 3:16pm GMT on 20th Jul This just in from Reuters; POLICE TRYING TO DISARM FLAMMABLE OR EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL IN CO SHOOTING SUSPECT'S APT -- AURORA POLICE CHIEF http://live.reuters.com/Event/Colorado_Dark_Knight_Shooting Apparently it's booby trapped with a 'sophisticated arrangement' with several explosives and the area is being evacuated.

pleaides said @ 3:24pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Funny] Further from Reuters: EXPLOSIVES APPEAR "VERY SOPHISTICATED" AND POLICE COULD BE AT SCENE "FOR HOURS OR DAYS" -- AURORA POLICE CHIEF They're using all caps, so they're pretty excited :)

pleaides said @ 3:28pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Underrated] Also, Breitbart says that the shooter may be a registered democrat, and somebody at the ABC is speculating that there might be a Tea Party connection. Fucking contemptible on both counts.

drd69 said @ 6:57pm GMT on 20th Jul Nice try ABC. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes/story?id=16818889#.UAmlGpGuWs8

blacksun said @ 4:48pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Funny] OMG U GUYS

hellboy said @ 5:00pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Funny] That makes me think what they really found is a large stockpile of fresh donuts.

assbastard said @ 3:27pm GMT on 20th Jul Dear Media, Can we please start calling this Domestic Terrorism now that explosives are involved? Warmest regards, A. McBastardson, Esq.

pleaides said @ 3:33pm GMT on 20th Jul Doesn't that word pre-suppose a political motive?

assbastard said @ 3:36pm GMT on 20th Jul Actually, you're correct. This is terrorization, not terrorism. ter·ror·ize   [ter-uh-rahyz] verb (used with object), ter·ror·ized, ter·ror·iz·ing. 1. to fill or overcome with terror. 2. to dominate or coerce by intimidation. 3. to produce widespread fear by acts of violence, as bombings.

yevishere said @ 3:40pm GMT on 20th Jul Terrorism usually means having a political motive. The motif of this psycho is far from clear.

pleaides said @ 3:57pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Funny] He's got a logo? Wow.

yevishere said @ 4:04pm GMT on 20th Jul Haha, motives...

sanepride said @ 4:23pm GMT on 20th Jul I agree, though sometimes it's a fuzzy line. Some of history's deadliest psychos claimed political motives. Anders Breivik, for example...terrorist or deranged spree killer?

hellboy said @ 4:53pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Underrated] Both?

structured_spirits said @ 5:29pm GMT on 20th Jul Breivik had targeted the kids on the island specifically because he believed they would grow up to be future elites running policy in Europe. By all accounts according to his manifesto he believed he was killing future Hitlers. The bomb he planted was used as a diversion so he could carry out the shootings free of police interference. So definitely terrorist, not spree killer.

radioelectric said @ 10:25pm GMT on 20th Jul Yes. This guy might have one, but we're far from clear on that yet. People jumping at the chance to call any crime "terrorism" annoys me (not to say that's what assbastard was doing). You get it a lot on Twitter "These people were terrified, how was this not terrorism!? #racism" (probably with more typos). Unfortunately words have meanings. Not fast fixed permanent meanings but I would at least like to try to preserve the words that we have that might still have a specific meaning. I don't want "terrorism" to be the new "fascism". I don't want it to be a flexible word that politicians can get away with sticking on anything (e.g. Wikileaks).

structured_spirits said @ 11:14pm GMT on 20th Jul I agree with what you are saying, and yet it doesn't seem appropriate that one person is labeled a terrorist because he was Osama Bin Laden's driver but never killed anyone, while someone else can shoot 70 strangers and is not considered at terrorist. I would posit that the term terrorist is basically redundant in it's current form, unless you redefine it to meake someone who scares people but doesn't otherwise doe things that would deserve a more severe label like murderer or war criminal etc.

radioelectric said @ 11:22pm GMT on 20th Jul it doesn't seem appropriate that one person is labeled a terrorist because he was Osama Bin Laden's driver but never killed anyone, while someone else can shoot 70 strangers and is not considered at terrorist That's because you don't seem to have a handle on murder not being identical to terrorism.

foobar said @ 11:29pm GMT on 20th Jul It's just our generation's communist.

structured_spirits said @ 2:39am GMT on 21st Jul Indeed, the best way I can see to get rid of it is to make the word apply to so many people it becomes useless as a political weapon.

EPT said @ 3:29am GMT on 21st Jul Terrorism is using violence (usually in the form of murder) to further political goals. The IRA were terrorists, and some of their activities did not physically harm people - ring in about a bomb, and either have it defused or have it go off when people get out. The key point is the political motivation.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 8:28am GMT on 21st Jul So by your definition, war is also terrorism. (Not that I'm disagreeing.)

pleaides said @ 8:44am GMT on 21st Jul That's a pretty big question I've been reading a bit about recently. It comes down to a critique of the Clausewitzian dictum that "war is an extension of policy by other means" that is best pursued by Sir John Keegan in his "A History of Warfare". The short version is that Clausewitz is completely wrong. Anyway, the definition of terrorism seems to contain the caveat that it's non-state actors that do it. When a nation does it it's categorised as a different class of activity. While the consequences may vary only in terms of scale in my opinion, it's still a distinction worth maintaining because otherwise we open the definition of terrorism to include so much that it loses its descriptive accuracy in discourse.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 8:53am GMT on 21st Jul Oh, I get it. Like if you hit me with a stick, it's battery, but if an agent of the state hits me with a stick, I'm resisting arrest.

EPT said @ 9:11am GMT on 21st Jul I don't think it's so clear-cut as state versus non-state actors, though it seems a reasonable rule of thumb. In Vietnam, the South Korean army was happy to torture people to root out Viet Cong and scare people from joining - they are state actors, and I think that's clearly terrorism. Similarly, while not official policy, US ground troops in Vietnam frequently engaged in acts of terrorism, My Lai probably being the most famous.

pleaides said @ 9:22am GMT on 21st Jul I was also quoting a description from a recent uni lecture on international relations, terrorism specifically. They made the precise point that it was defined as non-state actors mainly because you have to draw the line somewhere. Like the distinction between earthquake and tremor for example, or even between a colloid and an emulsion, or adult and child.

EPT said @ 11:41am GMT on 21st Jul Why do you have to draw a line at all? It seems an arbitrary declaration, especially since (as noted above) the London Blitz in WWII was explicitly to cause terror on civilians. The more we discuss it, the more it seems to me that terrorism is about trying to further your political goals by frightening civilians through violence or threat of violence, regardless of who does it. It doesn't make sense to me to say "it's not terrorism if a state entity does it" - because then you end up doing silly semantic dances trying to label tactics like the Blitz. What label does your lecturer suggest for things like the Blitz or the torture used to maintain order by the South Korean army in Vietnam? Or the mess in the Second Congo War, which saw both non-state and state actors engaging in the same shit? It just seems arbitrary to me to say 'it's not the same if a state does it', particularly with a word as demonised as 'terrorism'. It certainly makes no difference to the victims, who are the ones we're supposed to empathise with when we hear the word :)

pleaides said @ 12:15pm GMT on 21st Jul It's arbitrary of course, but we need to define the limits of what our words mean before we can use them to make ourselves understood, don't we? Pick any points near enough on the continuum and the distinction seems meaningless, but that doesn't mean we can't draw a distinction between say 'food' and 'poison' that is useful, and indeed necessary to facilitate discussion. I guess it's a functional definition really, one that tried to codify (however unsatisfactorily) what people actually mean when using such words. As a counter example, when you use a word like 'wave' in a general sense you're probably thinking of the beach. Once a scientific definition was required of the word 'wave' it ended up not including those water-hills one sees at the beach, they're not really waves apparently. While this definition required specificity(!) it's useless as a guide for discussions between people most of the time. When people use the word 'terrorism' it's not war they're referring to, regardless of how just that would be as a reflection of the actual face of battle. They're thinking of the actions of Baader-Meinhof, the IRA and the PLO. It's a distinction without a real difference, I'm not disagreeing with you at all on that point, but it reflects the actual usage of the word on the lips of those with the regrettable need to use it. It seems to me that to define a word as 'what people are talking about when they say that word' is pretty sensible. Nice to have you back mate.

happiest_sadist said @ 11:09am GMT on 22nd Jul No disagreement from me, just the minor nitpick that waves in water are in fact waves by any scientific definition of which I'm aware (except for those which specifically refer to electomagnetic waves.) They are waves of kinetic energy in the medium of water, and they are fairly well-understood.

pleaides said @ 11:33am GMT on 22nd Jul That's interesting, the definition that I'm remembering (perhaps erroneously) stipulated that the particles involved could move up and down with the passage of the wave, but not side-to-side. The video recreated a wave in a fish tank with some plastic particles in the water, and since the particles had the inclination to move left to right with the passage of the wave it was apparently excluded on that basis. It was contrasted with a 'true wave' which was demonstrated with coloured dots on a Cartesian plane, and the dots moved only within the vertical axis with the massage of the wave. If I'm wrong about this scarcely remembered snipped of video shown to me in science class 20 years ago then I'd appreciate you setting me straight.

EPT said @ 3:24pm GMT on 22nd Jul In all honesty, if the reasoning is "define the word the way people use it", then the modern definition, the way the general public use and understand it, is that terrorists are muslims. You can get an 'I guess so' out of them if you remind them of the IRA, but otherwise say 'terrorism' and you'll be engendering visions of keffiyehs and bomb vests. It still seems artificial to me to say "we'll define the word along the lines of how the public uses it" and then still correct the actual public usage. Ah, well. It's good to be back.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:18pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Funny] I think the implied distinction is "it's not terrorism if OUR state does it." Terrorists are those other guys.

EPT said @ 9:03am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Insightful] Yes and no. There are terrorism aspects to most wars. Certainly, there's something missing from my definition. I toyed with putting something in about scale, but left it out because that's not right either. I think the missing thing is that the acts need to be intended to cause fear in people. In WWI, while the armies were scary in themselves, they weren't so much about causing fear in the public rather than attrition of the opposing army - the targets were rarely civilians. But in the Vietnam War, both sides regularly engaged in activities that involved frightening people to play along. The Second Congo War was also high on the use of terrorism.

pleaides said @ 9:16am GMT on 21st Jul I suppose that the carpet bombing of Dresden and Hamburg can't NOT be described as terrorism.

radioelectric said @ 10:02am GMT on 21st Jul The justification for bombing Dresden was not ostensibly to cause fear.

pleaides said @ 10:53am GMT on 21st Jul I thought that the motivations were the same as Hitler's for the blitz, that is: to break the spirit of the civilian population. Presumably fear would have been the means whereby that was affected? Justification and motivation are possibly very different in this case however.

eIfish said @ 12:30pm GMT on 21st Jul Neither was the bombing of Hiroshima.

cb361 said @ 4:16pm GMT on 21st Jul The bombing of London might have been an attempt to instill fear, but I'm pretty sure the bombing of Dresden was was an attempt to wipe that city off the face of the Earth.

sanepride said @ 5:53pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Interesting] Terrible yes. Terrorism no. Acts of war, even criminal acts directed against civilians, are in a different category.

assbastard said @ 1:25am GMT on 21st Jul To be fair, I amended it to Terrorization, as that's what dude was doing with the mask and tear gas bombs.

Naruki said @ 3:49am GMT on 21st Jul Don't worry, our elected leaders are already on the case! Naturally this is another jerkoff from Texas. Who do you have to kill to elect a sane politician in that state?

pleaides said @ 10:55am GMT on 21st Jul Rightly are the simple so called.

structured_spirits said @ 5:20pm GMT on 20th Jul

the circus said @ 2:12am GMT on 22nd Jul So, was Robin Hood chaotic good?

landsky said @ 5:21pm GMT on 20th Jul

landsky said @ 5:22pm GMT on 20th Jul Sheldon: Its a secret... Leonard: So tell me the secret! Sheldon: Mom smokes in the car. Jesus is ok with it, but we cant tell dad... Leonard: Not that secret! The other secret! Sheldon: Im Batman! Shhh...

sanepride said @ 5:35pm GMT on 20th Jul The alleged shooter James Holmes: Reportedly he's a grad student in neurosciences at the University of Colorado Denver.

structured_spirits said @ 5:43pm GMT on 20th Jul The university is quick to point out that "he's in the process of withdrawing." Yeah no kidding, I think he's going to have a scheduling conflict pretty much from now on.

zarathustra said @ 8:21pm GMT on 20th Jul Well, he's got a pleasant smile. On the other hand, if he smiled like this while shooting the creepiness level goes way up.

spazm said @ 11:52pm GMT on 20th Jul Smiles don't say shit.

bltrocker said @ 4:10pm GMT on 21st Jul Yeah. Being a neuroscience grad student in Fort Collins, I was glad to hear he is actually a dropout in the program there.

kishi said @ 5:40pm GMT on 20th Jul I went to elementary school about two miles from where this happened. Fuuuuuck that's scary.

schatten00777 said @ 9:55pm GMT on 20th Jul I once flew into Denver. To think if this happened 10 years ago in a completely different scenario. Fuuuuuck that's scary.

radioelectric said @ 10:26pm GMT on 20th Jul A car drove past me as I waited to cross the road today. To think if I had been standing a couple of metres ahead of where I was. Fuuuuuck that's scary.

Mr. Langosta said @ 6:10pm GMT on 20th Jul The way theater tickets are sold, and with the theater emptying out and people fleeing the scene (understandably), everybody is going to know someone who was there in the next five years. Some people will even claim they were there themselves. You know some of the guys in the adjacent theaters are going to tell the story as if they were there, and just sort of omit the part that they were two screens over.

mrcucumber said @ 6:32pm GMT on 20th Jul I think that particular theater is going to have ticket sales problems in the near future. It might even be "remodeled."

Mr. Langosta said @ 6:59pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Funny] "Hey Dad, I don't have to worry about seeing over the seat. They've got peepholes punched through right at my height."

snowfox said @ 6:49pm GMT on 20th Jul Why are supervillains always doctors?

insanemonkey said @ 6:57pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Insightful] Stupid people don't go far in life, even in evil direction...

Ankylosaur said @ 7:04pm GMT on 20th Jul Same reason serial killers are often described as highly intelligent. Dumb killers are more likely to get caught after their first kill.

cb361 said @ 9:36pm GMT on 20th Jul It wouldn't make a satisfying story if the serial killer's taunting letters to the detective in charge of catching him were written on headed notepaper.

landsky said @ 7:03pm GMT on 20th Jul "It’s amazing how many super-villains have advanced degrees. Graduate schools should probably do a better job of screening those people out.” Doctor (comics) List of comic book supervillain debuts Doctor Alchemy, a DC Comics supervillain and Flash rogue Doctor Bedlam,a DC Comics supervillain and part of Jack Kirby's Fourth World Doctor Cyber, a DC Comics supervillain Doctor Death (comics), a DC Comics supervillain and enemy of Batman Doctor Destiny, a DC Comics villain Doctor Doom, a Marvel Comics supervillain Doctor Faustus (comics), a Marvel Comics supervillain associated with Captain America Doctor Impossible, a DC Comics supervillain Doctor Moon, a DC Comics supervillain Doctor Octopus, a Marvel Comics supervillain, known as an enemy of Spider-Man Doctor Phosphorus, a DC Comics supervillain Doctor Polaris, a DC Comics supervillain and enemy of Green Lantern Doctor Psycho, a DC Comics supervillain and enemy of Wonder Woman who went on to become a core member of the Secret Society of Supervillains Doctor Shocker, a DC Comics supervillain and member of the 1000 Doctor Spectro, a Charlton and DC comics supervillain Doctor Sun, a Marvel Comics supervillain

backSLIDER said @ 8:31pm GMT on 20th Jul My bet is that they would pay into the alumni groups well and really be great former students.

EPT said @ 3:32am GMT on 21st Jul There's a nice cadence in 'doctor'

danshyu said @ 7:05pm GMT on 20th Jul I feel disturbed that incidents like this no longer shock me. Also, this is why I'm no longer going to popular movies within first week of their permire. The crowd's crazy and if some lunatic is itching to start some shit, that's the perfect time to do it.

backSLIDER said @ 8:33pm GMT on 20th Jul I think the odds of being killed in the car to or from are much better. Maybe if you just walk to the movie?

midden said @ 11:06pm GMT on 20th Jul I recently heard (on Freakonomics, I think) that walking home drunk is statistically much more dangerous than driving home drunk, if you just consider the life of the drunk. Of course, driving home drunk is much more dangerous to others than walking.

structured_spirits said @ 7:18pm GMT on 20th Jul "Suspect dyed hair red like the joker." JOKER'S HAIR IS GREEN!!!

snowfox said @ 8:15pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Funny] STOP PERSECUTING THE RED-GREEN COLORBLIND! THEY'RE DOING THE BEST THEY CAN!

lilmookieesquire said @ 10:26pm GMT on 20th Jul He's probably thinking of the Riddler.

kishi said @ 10:39pm GMT on 20th Jul If his hair is red, I believe that makes him Ronald McDonald.

cb361 said @ 10:45pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:2 Insightful] Ronald likes to kill people in more subtle ways.

structured_spirits said @ 11:09pm GMT on 20th Jul

damnit said @ 3:56am GMT on 21st Jul Suspect was yelling that he's the joker... that's that.

Ankylosaur said @ 6:02am GMT on 21st Jul Well, I'm not going to argue with a guy with three guns.

danshyu said @ 8:08pm GMT on 20th Jul Also, this is another reason to watch movie bootleged, instead of going to theater.

Viper said @ 10:00pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:3 Funny] Don't bother. This has ruined the experience for me. All I can see in my pirate copy is the audience running about.

-_- said @ 8:31pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Informative] Where is kylemcbitch? Does anyone have a way to check on him? He lives in Boulder but I'd be a lot more comfortable if we hear from him.

Aphex808 said @ 12:36am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:2 Informative] Aurora's across the Denver metro area from Boulder, I doubt he'd even go there for a movie, certainly there were closer choices.

joe_done said @ 8:33pm GMT on 20th Jul Will be interesting to see how he gets treated compared to Anders Behring Breivik

structured_spirits said @ 9:13pm GMT on 20th Jul What do you mean? In terms of how nice his prison is or how he is tried? The American jail will be shit comparatively, but the one thing that really struck me about Breivik's trial was how Big Brotherish is was. I mean it was televised but every time that Brevik spoke the feed was blacked out, so that no one outside the courtroom ever got to hear him say anything. That was all kinds of weird and fucked-up.

maryyugo said @ 10:34pm GMT on 20th Jul That's probably so that every nutball with a "statement" to make won't draw attention by shooting people. Who says this slimebag has any right to a public platform on television or any other way?

structured_spirits said @ 11:02pm GMT on 20th Jul I'm not sure about Norway, but I think they're like us. In the US a public trial was the right of every citizen, at least until Obama declared it was legal for him to kill citizens, and then promised never to do so. Anyway the point is that the public has to be allowed access to help assure the trial is actually fair. In Breivik's specific case I was very saddened that they were so afraid that others would agree with him that they wouldn't let the public hear what he had to say. Basically he's the European version of a teapartier in that he believes the rulers of Europe are allowing the honky culture to be erased by letting in the cheap foreign labor.

radioelectric said @ 11:25pm GMT on 20th Jul Basically he's the European version of a teapartier in that he believes the rulers of Europe are allowing the honky culture to be erased by letting in the cheap foreign labor. Breivik's problem is that he takes a relatively small number of extremist Muslims at their word.

EPT said @ 3:39am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Insightful] The trial may still be public - you may have been able to front up in person to the courthouse, or receive the court transcripts. 'not having a TV feed' is not the same as 'not public', especially since the vast majority of court cases don't have TV feeds, anywhere in the world. Also, I do see some validity in blacking out his part of the feed, because honestly, most people will get by fine on court reporting of what he said (bar the lurid 'he looks crazy!' part), and a live feed of him would allow neo-nazi groups to rally around selected parts bereft of context. There's a big difference in presence between video and text - watching an orator speak is much more inspiring than reading their transcript.

sanepride said @ 9:48pm GMT on 20th Jul Well the biggest difference is that he'll probably get the death penalty.

snowfox said @ 8:35pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:3 Insightful] Do we have any SEers in Denver? Are we all still here?

blacksun said @ 10:29pm GMT on 20th Jul Everybody meet at the first aid tent

wangcan0 said @ 4:24pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:3] I'm solid. It's a buddy's theater, but he had a back spasm that night and decided on a different showing. Another friend's daughter was there, but her date got her behind cover, so she's fine as well (he's OK too). I'm inclined to approve of this young man.

radioelectric said @ 8:42pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:5 Insightful]

Menchi said @ 2:40am GMT on 21st Jul The video cuts out just before we can hear the news anchor's response: "But, but... what about our *RATINGS*?!"

schatten00777 said @ 5:52am GMT on 21st Jul I'm actually quite surprised at how many fucking interviews are being done with witnesses.

pleaides said @ 9:42am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Underrated] ">

smoug said @ 2:34pm GMT on 21st Jul I found it a bit odd that Batman hates guns but in the films he's driving around in a tank and has cannons and machine guns mounted on everything else.

eIfish said @ 2:41pm GMT on 21st Jul I think it fits with the "he buys them so other companies can't take them to market" thing.

smoug said @ 3:06pm GMT on 21st Jul Fair enough, but he's still personally using them, in a crowded city no less.

damnit said @ 7:08am GMT on 22nd Jul In Batmanverse, he never used them to kill. He did drop a 3-4 stories up. Chaotic Neutral.

damnit said @ 7:26am GMT on 22nd Jul dropped a guy.

pleaides said @ 11:06am GMT on 22nd Jul Wasn't working out between them eh?

bltrocker said @ 4:15pm GMT on 21st Jul What I find interesting is that when the authorities called his mom up, she was like "Yep. You probably got the right guy". That is so scary that you can't stop crazy. I mean, we would be going all Minority Report if we stopped everyone with the potential to snap, but how is there nothing to be done if you know your kid isn't right?

structured_spirits said @ 4:46pm GMT on 21st Jul Or perhaps her words have been taken completely out of context. Perhaps she was simply asked if the person under arrest was actually her son, to which she replied yes that is my son.

sanepride said @ 5:57pm GMT on 21st Jul She said 'you have the right person'. She may have been referring to herself. Reportedly she hadn't heard about the shootings until reporters confronted her at that moment. Hell of a way to find out, no doubt a highly disorienting experience.

pleaides said @ 12:13am GMT on 22nd Jul Pretty bloody disgusting really, of the reporters to bail his Mum up like that I mean.

eIfish said @ 4:47pm GMT on 21st Jul Any kind of system that acts on the unsubstantiable concerns of random people would have massive potential for abuse.

spyderpdm said @ 9:51am GMT on 22nd Jul I'm glad this didn't happen at a punisher movie. All we would hear for months would be people saying the movie made him do it and people trying to censor everything even more than they already do instead of addressing any real issues

pleaides said @ 11:07am GMT on 22nd Jul That'll happen anyway.

landsky said @ 1:45pm GMT on 22nd Jul [Score:1 WTF]

pleaides said @ 1:58pm GMT on 22nd Jul This is surprisingly confronting.

landsky said @ 1:45pm GMT on 22nd Jul

[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.