Roanoke Shooting

I just saw the video of the shooting from the gunman's perspective before posting my reflection. I do not have any social media websites so I had a choice of whether I wanted to see the video or not. At first, I really did not want to see the video because I felt it would be disrespectful to the people who were killed and I did not want to add to the gunman's fame. However, after hearing the discussion in class, I felt that it was important for me to see the video. After watching the video, I was horrified. Before watching the video, I knew that something very sad and tragic happened but seeing the video heightened the intensity of the murders for me. As of now, I have mixed emotions of whether or not the media should show videos like this to the public. Half of me still feels like it is wrong and disrespectful to show the end of someone's life because once it is on the internet, it will stay there forever and I feel like that will be a constant reminder to the family of what happened. On the other hand, I think people should see videos like this because shootings and killings are happening so often that people may be starting to brush it off like it is nothing. I think when people actually see someone being killed, it will make them realize that these are real people who had families, jobs, and their whole life ahead of them until something horrific and tragic happens to them. What was so creepy to me was that Alison Parker and Adam Ward were just doing their jobs like they did everyday and Vester Flanagan unexpectedly starts shooting them. It just made me feel like this could happen to anyone, including me because they were just going about their normal lives not expecting to be killed that tragic day.

Random Thought

The shooting that happened in Virginia was the most intimate act that most people have ever seen of such a crime. The issue is, that more people are worried about the less important angles of the issue trying to avoid the problem at hand. 

There needs to be a radical change in who can have access to a gun. Obviously, getting rid of guns will not eliminate all crime but such a intimate event like the shooting should grab the attention of everyone even more if past events haven't already. Random shooting will be less likely to occur if guns weren't handed out to everyone who thought they deserve one.

-Luis

Roanoke Shooting

 The Roanoke shooting was something i found quite tragic and shocking to witness. in yesterday's discussion in class, I came to the conclusion that technology should not be blamed for this crime. grant it, Twitter was used for exposure and to gain attention, it was not the source of the problem. CNN in my personal opinion should not show this at all and if people wish to see the video, they can look it up on their own time. The media shouldn't hammer down the image of this in peoples' minds. this will cause copycats and the discomfort of those that watch; especially the family members of  the shooter and loved ones of the victims.
   If it wasn't for technology and the former employee of the news station wanting so much attention, perhaps it would've been harder to track him if he didn't attempt to kill himself. in situations like this social media was a tool used to track down crime. Law enforcement recognize this fact and use technology to further their investigations that we as citizens wish to be handled in a timely manner. If such tools were more harmful than good, they wouldn't use them. Of course social media and such can be used for evil, but what in this world cannot or hasn't been used in a perverse way, although its true nature is to benefit lives?
   In short, we need to realize understand that all we can do in the future is observe and take matters more seriously and pay more attention to those around us and who we claim to associate with. in the end, some things we won't be able to predict, but as along as we are vigilant, we will avoid a lot of future tragedies.

Brock's Thoughts on the Roanoke Shooting

The shooting that occurred in Roanoke, while a horrible tragedy, was disturbing for two main reasons to me. First of all, obviously, people were murdered in cold blood. Murder of any kind always brings enough pain and suffering on its own. But more than that, these murders could clearly be heard happening on live television. So second of all, technology broadcasting these murders for all to witness (at least partially) makes the situation that much more horrible, especially for the families of the victims. Whether or not the footage should've been taken down, I'm not completely sure about how I feel. As it originally happened on live TV, I feel like people have the right to see it. But on the other hand, due to the violent and chilling nature of the video, I feel like people shouldn't be exposed to that. Only if they desire to view the footage, should they actually see it. Therefore I suppose I feel like it should be available for viewing to the general public, but not be available on sites designed to expose people information such as Facebook or Twitter. Other than that, I only feel sad that this tragedy happened and I'm disturbed by the intimacy technology brings us to this horrible violence.

WBDJ Shooting

This Wednesday Vester Lee Flanagan (AKA Bryce Williams) filmed himself shooting Alison Parker, Adam Ward, Vicki Gardner. Parker and Ward passed away. In addition to posting the film to social media, he made constant updates to his social media accounts regarding the shooting. According to the tweets that he had made he shot Parker and Ward for revenge. Flanagan said that Parker had made racist comments towards him, and was also upset that Ward had gone to human recourses after having worked with Flanagan once.

After this tragic event, people are accusing social media for various things. It's obvious that the killer was proud of the killings, and by watching and re-watching the videos we are almost giving him what he wants. Technology is definitely a helpful and useful media, but sometimes it can be used in inappropriate ways. The films posted online on the shootings were rather shocking, but otherwise they had no real value. What did we gain by watching the videos? There was no mystery regarding the nature of the shooting. There was no part that the public needed to see. In my opinion, the video should have been taken down, at the very least for the family's sake.

Guns kill people

Jumari brought up a great point in class: Twitter and Facebook are not the first media outlets, therefore they cannot be blamed for crime. Flanagan certainly wanted infamous attention, for reasons most cannot comprehend, but his predecessors could write letters to newspapers, call or fax in threats, find SOME means of making their crime known, etc.  The latest social media makes self-promotion easy, but it is not accurate to say it insights crime of this nature. 

There are a variety of opinions about Roanoke: we debate if graphic content should be shown, and if so, how often? We debate how we would like to be remembered, famous for our death caught on tape or sugarcoated in a peaceful obituary. We debate the extent of freedom of speech: what is the difference between a dumbass troll and an authentic threat? Something we are not addressing is easy gun access and the American mass shooting epidemic.

Though Flanagan targeted two people he knew, he claimed he admired the Virginia Tech shooter, saying, "That's my boy right there." There have been ample amounts of mass shootings since Columbine; copycat crime? Perhaps. Easy accessibility to the legal purchase of guns, improper background checks, mental illness under the radar? Probably. 

Our classroom discussion, as well as the discussions sweeping the nation, are insightful: but often we talk about what is easy to talk about: "Hey, we should remember the victims instead of focusing on this bastard!" Okay, I agree: I am sensitive to the unexpected loss of innocent life; but these losses will continue if we do not say what is hard to say when these incidents arise (often). A disproportionate amount of homicides will continue in the United States if we fail to address HOW these people are dying: people pull triggers, but guns kill people. 

WDBJ Killings

The question that arises from the WDBJ murders is a difficult one. Out of respect to the victims and their families, I absolutely think the video from Flanagan's perspective should be taken down. There is nothing to be gained from watching Parker's and Ward's deaths; in fact, I believe watching the shooter's video is only feeding his perverse desire to share his crime with the world. But if that video were to be removed from the public eye, how would that affect technology later on? Mirkinson brings up a valid point in his article, "to withhold relevant information because it is difficult to handle is to tell a kind of lie about the world". If the media were to permanently remove the Flanagan video from the internet, it would be out of good intentions towards the Ward and Parker families, and it would be a service to the rest of the public as well. There are people that could be permanently traumatized by watching that video, and there are people that might have been reminded of a past trauma by watching, especially if they weren't given a choice. However, if the Flanagan video is removed from public access, couldn't the media do the same with videos documenting police brutality? There have been videos posted of Sandra Bland before she died in jail, the harassment of black teenagers swimming in Texas, and other incidents of police brutality all over tumblr, Twitter, and Facebook. Without those videos as proof, it would be so much easier for the public to deny that America has a very real, very alarming police brutality problem. After all, pictures can be faked, and what they show you isn't always what really happened. Without the videos, all we would have are testimonies that could be easily ignored or refuted because who would admit to violently discriminating against American citizens? In short, the WDBJ killings leave the media in a difficult position. Of course, they can stop posting the video on their news feeds (I don't see why circulating the video every hour is even necessary), but taking it down leaves room for other videos in the future to be taken down. And these videos might not be senseless violence like the Flanagan video, something no one needs to see, but more proof that America has a very real problem and we need to start addressing it. Not just online and in social debates, but in public policies and state laws. 

Roanoke

We all agree that the shooting in Roanoke was a horrible thing, but honestly, do we think many of us will remember it a year from now? Some of us may, if only because the murderer did something unique. If it weren't for that (and maybe even with that) most of us will still discard the story to the recesses of our minds and never remember it again. Stories like that have become too normal. We see them every day on the news, every time we turn on our television: more bombings in the Middle East, more local murders, more national higher-profile murders, more plane crashes, more [insert horrible thing here].

The difference about the Roanoke shooting is that 1) it was targeted at specific individuals, even though another woman was caught in it, and 2) the killer live Tweeted it and posted his video to FaceBook. This seems to me like an obvious cry for attention, and I'm wondering why we are giving it to him. He undoubtedly wanted to create maximum shock. I'm not suggesting that the shooting shouldn't be aired on the news; I'm all for everyone knowing everything. What I've noticed is we have a habit of focusing on the murderer instead of the victims. The victims are given a line or two in each article, and then the rest of the article is all about the shooter. I understand that it's sensationalism and everyone wants to know what would make someone want to go kill two people and injure another, but it seems like we aren't really acknowledging that two people lost their lives. Two innocent people are dead and a bunch more lives are irreparably damaged because of one man.

Shootings in the Media

I was very shocked by the double murders on live television. I actually saw the video of the shooting and it gave me chills. As a viewer you know how the story ends so it's very tragic to see Alison Parker and Adam Ward just doing their normal everyday jobs with no idea that they were living their final moment on Earth. It's very disturbing to realize that the last moments of their lives are being posted for the world to see. As a viewer, I felt the urge to somehow warn them or to give them some type of signal to let them know what was about to happen. This is a feeling I am sure many other viewers experienced. Personally speaking, I have never seen anything like that before. I've never actually witnessed anyone being shot at, let alone murdered. I think the fact that this video is being broadcasted for the world to see is disrespectful on many levels. If I were to be shot at I would not want the crime being played on loops for the world to see. I feel that people should not focus on the very last moments of the lives of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. It is very tragic to witness how frightened Alison Parker was at the moment she was targeted.
I think that these type of stories should not be constantly hyped up. With the killer being identified, I don't see why news channels like CNN feel the need to continuously show the video. They are not showing the video to catch the murderer. It seems like the video is being shown to draw in more viewers rather to actually inform people. I strongly believe the media should take into consideration the feelings of the families of the victims. Surely no parent wants to turn on the television and see the murder of their child. No parent wants to constantly see their child gunned down every time they switch on the television or log on to the internet. The media needs to understand that these were real people. These were humans and they should be remembered as such, not as double homicide victims.

Roanoke Shooting Reflection

I have been puzzled by the unfortunate WDBJ killing for the past couple of days. What baffles me the most is how the media has portrayed the incident. After watching the CNN news segment I realized that more focus was placed on the shooter for publicizing the tragedy rather than the brutal slaying of two innocent people. As I read Farhad Manjoo’s article in New York Times, it brought to my attention why the shooter carried out his plan the way that he did. He knew that a double killing would not really spark the interests of national or world news. Therefore, he decided to display his crime right in our faces, directly in front of the camera man and sharing it himself through social media. It seems as though we have become accustomed to hearing and seeing horrible gun related killings in the media that now the future murderers of America have felt the need to take that extra step. There is no need for the news to be the middle man now because social media has taken its place. 

Roanoke Shooting Video: Contribution or Nosiness???

I will say right now that I do, in fact, believe that technology contributes to our knowledge of the reality of the world.  We get up in the morning and rely on our social media accounts to provide us with an update on the events that we missed out on while offline.  In some cases, watching sensitive videos is beneficial because it provides us with the information to either protect ourselves through awareness, or to understand what is happening in our government.  On the other hand, if the video is not beneficial to society in any way, I do not believe they should be made available to the public.  The people of this technological age are curious and nosy; we do not see the boundaries between too much information and just enough.  Because the tragic Roanoke shooting occurred on live television, no one had the power to decide whether to make the video public.  As for the shooters video, it was taken down fairly quickly; even after its removal, CNN as well as other internet sites continued to play it.  Did they keep playing it just to satisfy societies' overwhelming need for information, or because they felt that it was somehow helpful for us to watch it?  I personally feel that the video should have been taken down and kept down due to the fact that watching it brings us no awareness.  I also do not feel that the reporters that were shot would be happy knowing that the final terrifying moments of their lives were played over and over again for all the world to see.  I also want to bring up the fact that as the shooter live tweeted the event, he gained as many followers as some sort of celebrity (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/08/a-shooting-on-live-tv-in-roanoke-virginia/402355/).  I think that this is exactly what he wanted, to have a following.  Did the large following somehow allow him to feel justified in his actions, like there were people supporting him?  Many of the recent shootings have involved the use of technology as documentation; it's almost like the shooters feel the need to post something so that they can feel as if their reason for doing so is sufficient.  Another thing to think about is whether or not posting these videos lead directly to future shootings?  Many shooters, along with Vester Flanagan, have made reference to other horrific shooting events that prompted them to do they same.  I do think that people have a right to know what goes on in this real and scary world, but sometimes we need to accept that a news story is enough in itself, because, honestly, the video is none of our business.

Im sorry, I could not hear you over the shootings.

Are we in information overload, with every ounce of information good and bad at our fingertips. With a push of a button we can watch two innocent people dying on air, the beheading of ISS prisoners or a cat playing a piano all in one click. The question that comes my mind is, are we becoming numb to violence. That not to say that we don't care, we do, but for how long. Do we do anything about it or do we wake up, get dressed and go on like nothing happened--until something else happens. Is all this technology helping to make the world better, or is it just showing us the lousy state of the real world? Can we use technology for good or will we all pin anti gun banners on our Facebook profile, talk a good talk, but in a few weeks change our profile to a cute dog in a Halloween costume. But hey it is only a thought.

The shooting in Roanoke was a tragic occurrence that will be remembered by our nation. It is not merely remembered because it is one of many shootings, but because of the brutal connection to social media. Social media has trained this nation to think in constant updates; and the shooter in this occurrence did just this. He cruelly film himself ending a fellow human's life, and uploaded it to the internet, as if he was updating his status. I think the biggest issue in this case is whether or not it was justified in being taken down from Twitter and Facebook.  I believe these social medias to be just in their ways of taking down the footage because of the respect shown to the victims and the families. Unfortunately, current media continues to play the footage. This should not be watched out of respect; the public knows exactly what happened, even without seeing the shooting from his perspective.

Human Values over Technology Use

People are being gunned down in cold blood and no matter the culprit the common denominator is that dun control. I know it's no easy fix, but people need some sort of screening process before being able to get a gun. or maybe we all need guns. how likely would someone be to shoot up a place if there is a huge possibility that 8 out of 10 people there have guns too? not sure how much that'll change because lots of these shooters kill themselves in the end. and when cops do the killing, no one in their right mind is gonna open fire on an officer. This means that we need to start having an open discussion as human beings about mental illness and mental stability. "Our country is soaked in he blood of innocent people killed in the midst of normalcy." Most if not all shootings occur in everyday environments, no sign or warning usually comes before. But with recent technology we can get an in depth look into peoples lives. I know its only what they want to share but with this incident of the news station, this guy tweeted for a while about his anger and if we take these threats or disgruntle people seriously we can meet them where they are and talk them back down. But it is a gun issue but its also a people issue and it goes to show how we aren't who we want to be seen as on social media, we are human beings with real feelings and we all deserve to be treated as such. You never know what someone is dealing with.

The Roanoke Shooting

While reading the Alternet article about the Roanoke, VA shooting, so many questions popped in to my head. Does the video of the shooting really matter because it showed a death, or because it gave evidence against the killer? Are the deaths of the news broadcasters tragic because it was televised or because of the misfortunate reason why they were killed? Is it wrong to broadcast the video all over television to inform the world of what has happened? This is the time when technology has definitely been used for the worse. However, is the blame placed on technology or on the person who posts it? The shooter simply did what any other sixteen year-old teenager is doing, tweeting about his day. Of course the topic is not about a high school crush, but boundaries have not been set stating the “do’s and don’ts” of what not to post in the Twitter world. In the article, it brought up the fact that CNN was only showing the video of the shooting once every hour. I looked at CNN’s Twitter account to see some responses, and they posed ethical interpretations. Some tweeters were stating that CNN should not continue to show the video because of how horrifying it was to see, and it is a sensitive nature. Other responses stated that the video was important to the story and needed to be shown for an informative reason. Is it ethical for CNN to constantly play the video for the sake of information, or should the topic just be discussed without the video being seen? Should restrictions be placed on technology in order to uphold ethical standards of humanity? The realm of technology was clearly to advance for this circumstance, and was too much for people to handle. However, does this mean that technology will stop progressing based on this event alone?

Welcome to Class!

Welcome to the blog-home for Dr. J's Fall 2015 Technology and Human Values course! This site will serve as a forum for students to discuss the material we cover in class, as well as a place to raise questions we may not have addressed in class or to make connections between our material and current real-world events. Each week, students will be divided into two groups, with half of the class designated as "Authors" and the other half designated as "Commenters." In any given week, "Authors" will post a short essay (minimum 300 words) related to the course material before Friday at 5pm. "Commenters" will respond to at least two of that week's Author-posts before the beginning of the next week's class.  Students are encouraged to post or comment beyond the requirements stated here, as frequent and quality blog activity will be rewarded in the final grade.

First, if you don't know ANYTHING about blogs or blogging, there are (fortunately) lots of tutorials out there to help!  If you have a specific question, you can usually find the answer to it at the Blogger Help Center.  For a quick YouTube introduction to blogging, I suggest this video and this one.  There's also a "Complete List of Blogger Tutorials" available.  That's the amazing thing about the internet, of course... you can learn to do almost anything with a few clicks!

Second, you will notice that there are already many posts on this site. Those are from students who took this course before, and you are welcome to scroll through and take a look at what others have said about the course material.

It's important to know that blog-writing differs from the writing you might do for "traditional" papers in some ways, but not in others. Here are some things to think about as you compose your posts and comments:

FOR AUTHORS:

• Do not wait until the last minute to write your post! Students should think of the blog as a community exercise. In this community, Authors are responsible for generating that week's discussion and Commenters are responsible for continuing and elaborating upon it. In order for the Commenters to be able to provide the best commentary they can, it is necessary that Authors do not wait until the last minute to post entries in any given week. Like traditional papers, it is almost always obvious when a student has elected to write his or her blog-posts at the last minute, as they end up being either overly simple, poorly conceived or poorly edited. Your contribution to the blog discussion is important, so take care to show the respect to your classmates that you would expect them to show you.
• Be concise, but also precise. The greatest challenge of blog-writing is to communicate complex ideas in a minimal amount of words. It is important that you keep your posts short, in keeping with the blog format, but also that you do not sacrifice the clarity or completeness of your ideas for the sake of brevity.
• Be focused. If you find that your blog-entry is too long, it is likely because you have chosen too large a topic for one post. (Consider splitting up long entries into two or more posts.) It should be eminently clear, on the first reading, what your blog post is explaining/asking/arguing. Use the Post Title to clearly state the subject of your entry.
• Choose a topic that will prompt discussion. The measure of a good blog post is how much commentary it can generate. To that end, do not use your blog posts for simple exegesis or to revisit questions already settled in class. Good discussion-generators often include bold claims about, or original interpretations of, our classroom texts. Connecting the course material to current events or controversies is also a good way to generate discussion. Pay special attention to in-class conversations, as many of the issues that generate discussion in class will also do so on the blog.
• Proofread. Proofread. PROOFREAD. As a rule, blog-writing is (slightly) less formal than the writing you might do for a paper you hand in to your professor. For example, you may write in the first person, and a more "conversational" style is usually acceptable. However, ANY writing with glaring punctuation, spelling or grammatical mistakes not only will be difficult to read and understand, but also will greatly diminish the credibility of its Author. It is NOT ADVISABLE to "copy and paste" the text of your post into blog's "new post" box, as you will inevitably end up with a format that is difficult to read. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the formatting buttons above, and always preview your post before publishing it.
• Make use of the "extras" provided by new technology. When you write a traditional paper for class, you don't have many of the opportunities that blog-writing affords. Take advantage of the technologies available here to insert images, embed video or employ hyperlinks to other relevant materials.
• Respond to your commenters. Authors should stay abreast of all the commentary their posts generate. If you are asked for clarification by a commenter, or if one of your claims is challenged, it is the Author's responsibility to respond.

FOR COMMENTERS:

• Read carefully BEFORE you comment. The biggest and most frequent error made by commenters is also the most easily avoidable, namely, misreading or misunderstanding the original post. Don't make that error!
• Simple agreement or disagreement is not sufficient. Sometimes it will be the case that you fully agree or disagree with an Author's post. However, a comment that simply states "I agree" or "I disagree" will not count for credit. You MUST provide detailed reasons for your agreement or disagreement in your comment.
• Evidence works both ways. Often, the source of disagreement between an Author and a Commenter will involve a textual interpretation. If an Author claims in his or her post that "Advocates of the death penalty are obviously operating within a Kantian moral framework," the Author should have also provided a page citation from Kant supporting that claim. If you (as a Commenter) disagree, it is your responsibility to cite a passage from Kant that provides evidence for your disagreement. For disagreements that are not text-based-- for example, disagreements about statistical claims, historical claims, claims about current events, or any other evidentiary matters-- hyperlinks are your friend.
• NO flaming allowed!:  Engage your classmates on the blog with the same consideration and respect that you would in class. 

Although this blog is viewable by anyone on the Web, participants have been restricted to members of the PHIL324 class only. This means that only students enrolled in PHIL324 this semester at CBU can post or comment on this blog. However, anyone can read it, so students are reminded to take special care to support the claims that they make, to edit their posts and comments judiciously, and to generally represent themselves in conversation as they would in public. If you are new to blogging, you can visit the sites for other CBU course blogs listed in the column to your right.

I look forward to seeing your conversation develop over the course of this semester!
--Dr. J