I mean...this is bad even for Florida. Apparently they don't have any bystander laws down there that compels people to act if they see another person in trouble. Teens laugh while recording man drowning - ( New Window )
when my dad first retired from the D.C. Fire Dept.
We moved back to the D.C. area a year and a half later.
The kids there were insane. My brother & I would have to get in a fight every other week. Kids in the neighborhood would would hike out towards a highway overpass where there was a homeless camp and shoot pellet guns at the homeless people. Shoot pellet guns & roman candles at cop cars patrolling the neighborhood. Break into peoples houses when they were out of town. Slash car & bike tires. Break windows on houses.
This was a nicer area too. Right outside the Country Club of Orlando. Porsche 944s in every other driveway. Saw all of those things listed above multiple times and these weren't even teenagers. Most of these kids were in elementary & middle school. I was in the 3rd grade and having to fight kids in the 8th grade. Shit was insane.
This is the effect technology is having on children.
It's going to get worse.
I agree with the desensitized part.
But don't agree that technology is to blame. If the kids didn't have their camera phone I doubt they would've decided to save him. It just wouldn't have been out there for the world to see. Unfortunately there are some people... as there has been throughout history... that are more morally corrupt than your average person. These kids are an example of these types of people.
If by 'worse' you mean that we may see something more horrific... yeah, probably. I mean... kid's are straight killing other kids nowadays and it's been a problem for a long time now. It can... and probably will... always 'get worse'.
back in the day, kids would poke fun at the drowning dude and then once they realized he was actually dead, they'd scatter like flies, with only a close circle of people there to ever hear about what happened.
Where technology comes into play is that now millions can be aware of their insensitivity and cowardness.
back in the day, kids would poke fun at the drowning dude and then once they realized he was actually dead, they'd scatter like flies, with only a close circle of people there to ever hear about what happened.
Where technology comes into play is that now millions can be aware of their insensitivity and cowardness.
Bingo. Before anyone goes nuts, remember that if the Bible is true, Cain killed Abel, HIS BROTHER and the first offspring on the planet. It's about man's inhumanity to man, not cell phone availability. Technology isn't doing anything other than putting a lens on all of it. And as we age, we think the younger ones are always shitty, we aren't getting any worse we are still scummy things capable of scummy things.
an awful, 1,000 times worse, real version of the last Seinfeld episode.
I don't think we can draw on any conclusions about a generation of kids or technology causing the teens to mock rather than save the man who drowned.
As others have said, this has gone on before the proliferation of smartphones. Lord of the Flies like behavior.
I know a lot of great teens who commit their free time to volunteering for less fortunate. It could be that these kids have crappy ass parents who did not teach them proper ethical behavior.
Or does that story read as the guy was committing suicide by drowning? He had a huge fight with his fiancée, stormed out of the house and....went to the beach for a quick dip?
This is the effect technology is having on children.
It's going to get worse.
I agree with the desensitized part.
But don't agree that technology is to blame. If the kids didn't have their camera phone I doubt they would've decided to save him. It just wouldn't have been out there for the world to see. Unfortunately there are some people... as there has been throughout history... that are more morally corrupt than your average person. These kids are an example of these types of people.
If by 'worse' you mean that we may see something more horrific... yeah, probably. I mean... kid's are straight killing other kids nowadays and it's been a problem for a long time now. It can... and probably will... always 'get worse'.
See, I think they are desensitized BECAUSE of the technology. I agree it would have made no difference whether they had the cell phone to record it or not.
My statement about technology was more about what they see from a very young age. Kids that I teach watch some horrific shit on their cell phones in class without batting an eye. Many will even laugh.
I agree bad people have been around forever, but when I was a kid, I didn't have an immediate outlet to see somebody get their head cut off even if I wanted to see that. Kids today can see some of the worst shit imaginable in an instant, if they so choose. And they trade the clips with each other like we traded baseball cards.
Lack of empathy is not a new phenomenon, and I don't believe that it's actually growing in frequency. It's just that we get to see more of it due to how connected we are.
There have always been sociopaths and pscyhopaths and everyone in between. And as much as people like to shit on the new generations, the previous generations weren't any better.
People used to make a family outing out of public executions Â
But I guess I will play devil's advocate (not really play, since I do believe it), and say that, while I think nothing but ill towards these people, I just don't believe in bystander laws. I don't think gov't should be able to compel people not to be assholes. Now, if gov't and individuals let these guys drown under the same circumstances in recompense, then I'm okay with that too.
The internet changed the course of human history, Â
and it's still in it's infancy in the big picture. I wonder if many decades down the road we will classify mankind as Pre-internet and Post-internet, in the same way we classify BC and AD when talking about history.
It changed the way we act socially and connected us for better or worse to everything good and bad around the world.
I think it's a little naive to dismiss how it may have changed the development of the brain from birth, for anybody that grew up in the internet age. The truth is, we just don't know what effect it is or isn't having.
In the book, which became a New York Times bestseller and Pulitzer Prize finalist, Carr explored the many ways that technology might be affecting our brains. Carr became particularly concerned about how the Internet seemed to be impairing our ability to think deeply and to focus on one subject for extended periods.
Today, social media and digital devices have an arguably greater place in our lives and hold on our attention spans than they did in 2011.
So what has changed since Carr wrote his seminal work five years ago? We chatted with the journalist and author about how our increasing interactions with mobile technology might be affecting the most important organ in our bodies.
Quote:
Are you also concerned about this lack of depth, or shallowness, in our social interactions?
That isn’t something that I’ve studied much, but I think there are some indications that this kind of culture of constant distraction and interruption undermines not only the attentiveness that leads to deep thoughts, but also the attentiveness that leads to deep connections with other people.
One study I mentioned in the book seemed to show that the more distracted you are — the more your train of thought is interrupted — the less able you are to experience empathy. So distractions could make it more difficult for us to experience deep emotions.
Quote:
What do you say to people who argue that at every stage of history, we’ve been up in arms about new technologies that ultimately proved benign — and that the Internet is no different?
We’ve never had a technology like a smartphone before — a technology that you carry around with you all day long and are pretty much constantly interacting with. Even television was traditionally segregated into different parts of the day — it wasn’t like people carried around a TV in their pocket.
This is a very different kind of technology that we’ve created for ourselves that does interfere with our thoughts. We’ve never had a media technology that so shapes the way our mind works.
that there have been A-holes since the beginning of time and there will always be A-holes like these kids. All technology and the internet does is highlight every day to the rest of us that A-holes exist, but it doesn't mean our society is getting worse with each generation. Crime rates are still going down Last I checked.
RE: The internet changed the course of human history, Â
and it's still in it's infancy in the big picture. I wonder if many decades down the road we will classify mankind as Pre-internet and Post-internet, in the same way we classify BC and AD when talking about history.
It changed the way we act socially and connected us for better or worse to everything good and bad around the world.
I think it's a little naive to dismiss how it may have changed the development of the brain from birth, for anybody that grew up in the internet age. The truth is, we just don't know what effect it is or isn't having.
And in same vane, I would suggest that it's a bit too paranoid and cynical to blame technology when as you state in your last sentence that we just don't know the effects as of yet. Sort of not practicing what you're preaching, no?
Or does that story read as the guy was committing suicide by drowning? He had a huge fight with his fiancée, stormed out of the house and....went to the beach for a quick dip?
LOL! The same thought crossed my mind! I was like 'Well how did he get in there in the first place and if he couldn't swim, why?'. Because if he went in there to commit suicide... then that begs the question are the teens REALLY wrong (not to save him.... not the laughing part, that's wrong no matter what)? If he went in there to try to kill himself... and then had a change of heart... is it still the teen's responsibility to go in after him? Most people (including myself) probably would... but can you blame someone who wouldn't?
lack of empathy has always been there. We've really been playing kick the can on who to blame for being desensitized to violence. Is it music, movies, video games, internet? The one thing internet did in this instance is make this incident available for us to see. Without it, it's not even a news piece.
The way adolescents of today learn, play, and interact has changed more in the past 15 years than in the previous 570 since Gutenberg’s popularization of the printing press. The Internet, iPads, cell phones, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and other modern marvels unleash a virtual gusher of information to the plugged in teen brain.
In 2010 U.S. adolescents spent an average of 8.5 hours per day interacting with digital devices, up from 6.5 hours in just 2006 [1]. Thirty percent of the time they are simultaneously using more than one device, bringing daily total media exposure time to 11.5 hours. These numbers are a moving target and vary by survey, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and geography, but all indications are that the amount of screen time has been dramatically increasing and is likely to continue to do so as the technology improves and becomes even more widely available. The pace of “penetration” (i.e., the amount of time it takes for a new technology to be used by 50 million people) is unprecedented. For radio, technological penetration took 38 years; for telephone, 20; for television, 13; for the World Wide Web, 4; for Facebook, 3.6 years; for Twitter, 3 years; for iPads 2 years; and for Google+, 88 days. The pace and pervasiveness of these changes, i.e., the digital revolution, raise several questions relevant to adolescent health – relevance that extends to children, teens, parents, teachers, and society at large. What are the implications, for good or ill, of the dramatic changes in the way adolescents spend their time? How can the technology be harnessed to optimize the positive and minimize the negative? Might the unprecedented rate of change itself overwhelm adaptive mechanisms? The digital revolution gives us unique insight how experience shapes the brain, and, in turn, how these brain changes may change our experience. Consideration of the neurobiology and evolutionary history of the adolescent brain may provide some context to explore these questions.
Or does that story read as the guy was committing suicide by drowning? He had a huge fight with his fiancée, stormed out of the house and....went to the beach for a quick dip?
I thought the same thing. However, let's not distract ourselves from the pathetic individuals this is about. People who are that rotten on the inside don't tend to be apart of society for very long...
Bystander laws that would compel people to act are an awful idea Â
The consequences are just unfathomable. What happens when the State compels me to risk my own life to save another? Or if while following a Bystander law, I make the situation considerably worse, despite trying to be a law abiding citizen. Am I now in the circle of potential defendants?
It's awful that the man drowned, it's horrible that these little shits are so vile they sat and filmed and they should have probably helped. Their indifference does not make them pitiable. But the desire to create a victim and a perp is too strong here.
It's a shame they'd rather get likes and comments for a drowning death than becoming heroes by saving the man's life.
Do you think that if those kids didn't have a camera phone that they would've saved that man?
No, I don't think they would have.
I guess I separate it into two different, horrible things.
1. That they let him drown, mocked him, and refused to help him. That falls into the classic stereotype of evil that is being brought up here.
2. This is the technological part, that they felt compelled (in addition to watching him die) to record it, presumably with the intention to share socially. I find that equally disturbing as the first part.
RE: Bystander laws that would compel people to act are an awful idea Â
The consequences are just unfathomable. What happens when the State compels me to risk my own life to save another? Or if while following a Bystander law, I make the situation considerably worse, despite trying to be a law abiding citizen. Am I now in the circle of potential defendants?
It's awful that the man drowned, it's horrible that these little shits are so vile they sat and filmed and they should have probably helped. Their indifference does not make them pitiable. But the desire to create a victim and a perp is too strong here.
It's a shame they'd rather get likes and comments for a drowning death than becoming heroes by saving the man's life.
If the law compelled people to at least attempt to call 911 would that be an undue hardship?
RE: Bystander laws that would compel people to act are an awful idea Â
The consequences are just unfathomable. What happens when the State compels me to risk my own life to save another? Or if while following a Bystander law, I make the situation considerably worse, despite trying to be a law abiding citizen. Am I now in the circle of potential defendants?
It's awful that the man drowned, it's horrible that these little shits are so vile they sat and filmed and they should have probably helped. Their indifference does not make them pitiable. But the desire to create a victim and a perp is too strong here.
It's a shame they'd rather get likes and comments for a drowning death than becoming heroes by saving the man's life.
I get what you're saying, saving a drowning man is extremely dangerous. However, an obligation to call 9-1-1 to report what you're seeing doesn't seem like too much to ask for.
RE: RE: Bystander laws that would compel people to act are an awful idea Â
The consequences are just unfathomable. What happens when the State compels me to risk my own life to save another? Or if while following a Bystander law, I make the situation considerably worse, despite trying to be a law abiding citizen. Am I now in the circle of potential defendants?
It's awful that the man drowned, it's horrible that these little shits are so vile they sat and filmed and they should have probably helped. Their indifference does not make them pitiable. But the desire to create a victim and a perp is too strong here.
It's a shame they'd rather get likes and comments for a drowning death than becoming heroes by saving the man's life.
If the law compelled people to at least attempt to call 911 would that be an undue hardship?
I don't know if it would be an undue hardship or not but if there was a referendum on it, I would vote nay.
RE: RE: Bystander laws that would compel people to act are an awful idea Â
The consequences are just unfathomable. What happens when the State compels me to risk my own life to save another? Or if while following a Bystander law, I make the situation considerably worse, despite trying to be a law abiding citizen. Am I now in the circle of potential defendants?
It's awful that the man drowned, it's horrible that these little shits are so vile they sat and filmed and they should have probably helped. Their indifference does not make them pitiable. But the desire to create a victim and a perp is too strong here.
It's a shame they'd rather get likes and comments for a drowning death than becoming heroes by saving the man's life.
If the law compelled people to at least attempt to call 911 would that be an undue hardship?
That's a pretty difficult concept to put into practice. What if no phone is available or I don't know where one is? What if I'm geographically close but unaware of the distress? What satisfies an attempt to call 911? How soon after the realization of the situation do I have to contact 911? Contemporaneously? Within 20 minutes? ASAP defined by what? If I walk to the phone, am I liable for not running? What if it's an ongoing situation and you may have to put yourself in harm's way to attempt that call...Etc. etc. etc. you get the idea.
They seemed to have been searching for some form of negligence in this case, but you can only be negligent when you owe a duty of care towards another person. We should want that to be consensual rather than coerced.
In my opinion, it's just a really dangerous concept that someone else can trigger an obligation on my part, merely for being in the vicinity of their misfortune. This is obviously not the moral argument.
Though I do agree with the concept, that how we use technology, and more importantly, how parents let their kids get wrapped up in, become dependent on and use that technology affects the development of personality and morality. I don't think it's as much the tech itself, or even the violent/sexual images bombarded thru the tech - even more, it's the general loss of morals as important to society as a whole. There's likely many causes/reasons, including the way kids now are raised to be special snowflakes who are always right in their own personal space bubble, and deserve an award for every 'accomplishment'. No wonder they grow up to expect everyone to praise them constantly and need rewards just to do everyday tasks. There's no real concept of the greater good anymore - our society and culture is mainly focused on the individual. I'd guess these kids reaction when questioned was along the lines of 'We didn't tell him to go swimming, it's his own fault, we're not responsible', and no despite recording it on a phone, no one thought to call for help. It's terrible, and the general attitude of me-first has always existed, but it's extremely pervasive now in our celebrity obsessed look at me all the time culture. They should have at least called 911 if they didn't plan on helping...
Altho I also agree with many others who are not in favor of the good Samaritan laws. I believe people should always try to help others in trouble, no matter how serious or minor. However, I'm not in favor of a law compelling people to do so. I don't think you can legislate people to be 'good' persons. It's similar to the types of laws for anti-hate of certain groups - like a law requiring everyone to use the preferred pronoun of a trans person. Sure, we should all be respectful and refer to a person by their preference. No, I don't believe that should be required. It's a big leap from making a law against an action, to making a law requiring an action.
If too political no problem if mods delete with my apologies.
Though I do agree with the concept, that how we use technology, and more importantly, how parents let their kids get wrapped up in, become dependent on and use that technology affects the development of personality and morality. I don't think it's as much the tech itself, or even the violent/sexual images bombarded thru the tech - even more, it's the general loss of morals as important to society as a whole. There's likely many causes/reasons, including the way kids now are raised to be special snowflakes who are always right in their own personal space bubble, and deserve an award for every 'accomplishment'. No wonder they grow up to expect everyone to praise them constantly and need rewards just to do everyday tasks. There's no real concept of the greater good anymore - our society and culture is mainly focused on the individual. I'd guess these kids reaction when questioned was along the lines of 'We didn't tell him to go swimming, it's his own fault, we're not responsible', and no despite recording it on a phone, no one thought to call for help. It's terrible, and the general attitude of me-first has always existed, but it's extremely pervasive now in our celebrity obsessed look at me all the time culture. They should have at least called 911 if they didn't plan on helping...
Altho I also agree with many others who are not in favor of the good Samaritan laws. I believe people should always try to help others in trouble, no matter how serious or minor. However, I'm not in favor of a law compelling people to do so. I don't think you can legislate people to be 'good' persons. It's similar to the types of laws for anti-hate of certain groups - like a law requiring everyone to use the preferred pronoun of a trans person. Sure, we should all be respectful and refer to a person by their preference. No, I don't believe that should be required. It's a big leap from making a law against an action, to making a law requiring an action.
If too political no problem if mods delete with my apologies.
I agree. The technology itself isn't to blame, just because it exists.
I like technology, hell, I'm using it to post right now on BBI and other sites/forums of hobbies I frequent. I buy and sell on Ebay all the time. I learn all kinds of cool stuff. It's great, and I don't hate it for existing.
Now, the other side, I have a 6 year old and a 2 year old, and I'm terrified of technology when it comes to them. Cyberbullying, Blue Whale suicide shit, sexting.... That scares me as a parent, and I'm going to do my due diligence and then some, but I know I can't/won't catch everything.
And say I appreciate all the good work Deej put in to try and derail this.
On the subject and all the discussion about the bystander laws: if you have the means to help, you should. I can't imagine a more black and white case of that here. Grey area aside, if the barest of minumim law were in place, these kids would have to face some sort of consequence.
This is a systemic failure on all levels: parents, schools, kids themselves. If there were ANY infrastructure available, I would hope this could have been prevented.
And say I appreciate all the good work Deej put in to try and derail this.
On the subject and all the discussion about the bystander laws: if you have the means to help, you should. I can't imagine a more black and white case of that here. Grey area aside, if the barest of minumim law were in place, these kids would have to face some sort of consequence.
This is a systemic failure on all levels: parents, schools, kids themselves. If there were ANY infrastructure available, I would hope this could have been prevented.
i agree about the failures you mentioned. I'm just against government forcing you to do stuff, even if it's to be a normal decent person.
And say I appreciate all the good work Deej put in to try and derail this.
On the subject and all the discussion about the bystander laws: if you have the means to help, you should. I can't imagine a more black and white case of that here. Grey area aside, if the barest of minumim law were in place, these kids would have to face some sort of consequence.
This is a systemic failure on all levels: parents, schools, kids themselves. If there were ANY infrastructure available, I would hope this could have been prevented.
i agree about the failures you mentioned. I'm just against government forcing you to do stuff, even if it's to be a normal decent person.
Bill
I agree with you. Except I can't fathom the lack of empathy from any of them.
Joking while watching someone die? I'm sure they would have each others back in a pinch, not.
If you buy that as an arguement - ridiculous. Never heard of marijuana giving people less empathy.
definitely not, but if they admit to smoking pot they implicate themselves in a crime. shortsighted and selfish definitely, but what would you expect from anyone lacking maturity
So you just wreck your car and eject your sister out the window and kill her.... and your first instinct afterwards is to not only find the phone and get back on it and talk to your "audience/followers" while you're showing your dead sister on the ground? That's some f-cked up shit right there, and you can't tell me technology doesn't drive our society, especially kids, towards that sort of behavior.
Quote:
Moments later, Obdulia Sanchez was on Instagram Live again, explaining what happened — and growing increasingly hysterical.
“Hey, everybody, if I go to f—— jail for life, you already know why,” she began, adjusting the camera so that it showed her younger sister, motionless and bleeding from the head.
“My sister is f—— dying. Look, I f—— love my sister to death. I don’t give a f—. Man, we about to die. This is the last thing I wanted to happen to us, but it just did. Jacqueline, please wake up.”
Another girl screamed in the background.
“I don’t f‑‑‑‑‑‑ care though,” Sanchez continued. “I’m a hold it down. I love you, rest in peace, sweetie. If you don’t survive, baby, I am so f‑‑‑‑‑‑ sorry. I did not mean to kill you, sweetie. Sweetie, I am f‑‑‑‑‑‑ sorry. Sweetie, please, wake up!”
Our society is nearly completely based on social media now. To turn a blind eye to that, and the effect it has on children, or think that it is the same as it ever was, is incredibly short sighted.
This ruined my day. RIP.
What's your previous handle?
Just horrific.
We moved back to the D.C. area a year and a half later.
The kids there were insane. My brother & I would have to get in a fight every other week. Kids in the neighborhood would would hike out towards a highway overpass where there was a homeless camp and shoot pellet guns at the homeless people. Shoot pellet guns & roman candles at cop cars patrolling the neighborhood. Break into peoples houses when they were out of town. Slash car & bike tires. Break windows on houses.
This was a nicer area too. Right outside the Country Club of Orlando. Porsche 944s in every other driveway. Saw all of those things listed above multiple times and these weren't even teenagers. Most of these kids were in elementary & middle school. I was in the 3rd grade and having to fight kids in the 8th grade. Shit was insane.
It's going to get worse.
I agree with the desensitized part.
But don't agree that technology is to blame. If the kids didn't have their camera phone I doubt they would've decided to save him. It just wouldn't have been out there for the world to see. Unfortunately there are some people... as there has been throughout history... that are more morally corrupt than your average person. These kids are an example of these types of people.
If by 'worse' you mean that we may see something more horrific... yeah, probably. I mean... kid's are straight killing other kids nowadays and it's been a problem for a long time now. It can... and probably will... always 'get worse'.
Where technology comes into play is that now millions can be aware of their insensitivity and cowardness.
Where technology comes into play is that now millions can be aware of their insensitivity and cowardness.
I don't think we can draw on any conclusions about a generation of kids or technology causing the teens to mock rather than save the man who drowned.
As others have said, this has gone on before the proliferation of smartphones. Lord of the Flies like behavior.
I know a lot of great teens who commit their free time to volunteering for less fortunate. It could be that these kids have crappy ass parents who did not teach them proper ethical behavior.
A dolphin would probably have saved him. Humans, as their known, are just disgusting IMO.
Interesting. When i go to kill a bug, i dont see his little friends coming to his rescue.
You're obviously playing us now.
Quote:
This is the effect technology is having on children.
It's going to get worse.
I agree with the desensitized part.
But don't agree that technology is to blame. If the kids didn't have their camera phone I doubt they would've decided to save him. It just wouldn't have been out there for the world to see. Unfortunately there are some people... as there has been throughout history... that are more morally corrupt than your average person. These kids are an example of these types of people.
If by 'worse' you mean that we may see something more horrific... yeah, probably. I mean... kid's are straight killing other kids nowadays and it's been a problem for a long time now. It can... and probably will... always 'get worse'.
See, I think they are desensitized BECAUSE of the technology. I agree it would have made no difference whether they had the cell phone to record it or not.
My statement about technology was more about what they see from a very young age. Kids that I teach watch some horrific shit on their cell phones in class without batting an eye. Many will even laugh.
I agree bad people have been around forever, but when I was a kid, I didn't have an immediate outlet to see somebody get their head cut off even if I wanted to see that. Kids today can see some of the worst shit imaginable in an instant, if they so choose. And they trade the clips with each other like we traded baseball cards.
There have always been sociopaths and pscyhopaths and everyone in between. And as much as people like to shit on the new generations, the previous generations weren't any better.
But I guess I will play devil's advocate (not really play, since I do believe it), and say that, while I think nothing but ill towards these people, I just don't believe in bystander laws. I don't think gov't should be able to compel people not to be assholes. Now, if gov't and individuals let these guys drown under the same circumstances in recompense, then I'm okay with that too.
It changed the way we act socially and connected us for better or worse to everything good and bad around the world.
I think it's a little naive to dismiss how it may have changed the development of the brain from birth, for anybody that grew up in the internet age. The truth is, we just don't know what effect it is or isn't having.
Today, social media and digital devices have an arguably greater place in our lives and hold on our attention spans than they did in 2011.
So what has changed since Carr wrote his seminal work five years ago? We chatted with the journalist and author about how our increasing interactions with mobile technology might be affecting the most important organ in our bodies.
That isn’t something that I’ve studied much, but I think there are some indications that this kind of culture of constant distraction and interruption undermines not only the attentiveness that leads to deep thoughts, but also the attentiveness that leads to deep connections with other people.
One study I mentioned in the book seemed to show that the more distracted you are — the more your train of thought is interrupted — the less able you are to experience empathy. So distractions could make it more difficult for us to experience deep emotions.
We’ve never had a technology like a smartphone before — a technology that you carry around with you all day long and are pretty much constantly interacting with. Even television was traditionally segregated into different parts of the day — it wasn’t like people carried around a TV in their pocket.
This is a very different kind of technology that we’ve created for ourselves that does interfere with our thoughts. We’ve never had a media technology that so shapes the way our mind works.
Link - ( New Window )
It changed the way we act socially and connected us for better or worse to everything good and bad around the world.
I think it's a little naive to dismiss how it may have changed the development of the brain from birth, for anybody that grew up in the internet age. The truth is, we just don't know what effect it is or isn't having.
And in same vane, I would suggest that it's a bit too paranoid and cynical to blame technology when as you state in your last sentence that we just don't know the effects as of yet. Sort of not practicing what you're preaching, no?
LOL! The same thought crossed my mind! I was like 'Well how did he get in there in the first place and if he couldn't swim, why?'. Because if he went in there to commit suicide... then that begs the question are the teens REALLY wrong (not to save him.... not the laughing part, that's wrong no matter what)? If he went in there to try to kill himself... and then had a change of heart... is it still the teen's responsibility to go in after him? Most people (including myself) probably would... but can you blame someone who wouldn't?
In 2010 U.S. adolescents spent an average of 8.5 hours per day interacting with digital devices, up from 6.5 hours in just 2006 [1]. Thirty percent of the time they are simultaneously using more than one device, bringing daily total media exposure time to 11.5 hours. These numbers are a moving target and vary by survey, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and geography, but all indications are that the amount of screen time has been dramatically increasing and is likely to continue to do so as the technology improves and becomes even more widely available. The pace of “penetration” (i.e., the amount of time it takes for a new technology to be used by 50 million people) is unprecedented. For radio, technological penetration took 38 years; for telephone, 20; for television, 13; for the World Wide Web, 4; for Facebook, 3.6 years; for Twitter, 3 years; for iPads 2 years; and for Google+, 88 days. The pace and pervasiveness of these changes, i.e., the digital revolution, raise several questions relevant to adolescent health – relevance that extends to children, teens, parents, teachers, and society at large. What are the implications, for good or ill, of the dramatic changes in the way adolescents spend their time? How can the technology be harnessed to optimize the positive and minimize the negative? Might the unprecedented rate of change itself overwhelm adaptive mechanisms? The digital revolution gives us unique insight how experience shapes the brain, and, in turn, how these brain changes may change our experience. Consideration of the neurobiology and evolutionary history of the adolescent brain may provide some context to explore these questions.
Link - ( New Window )
I thought the same thing. However, let's not distract ourselves from the pathetic individuals this is about. People who are that rotten on the inside don't tend to be apart of society for very long...
It's awful that the man drowned, it's horrible that these little shits are so vile they sat and filmed and they should have probably helped. Their indifference does not make them pitiable. But the desire to create a victim and a perp is too strong here.
It's a shame they'd rather get likes and comments for a drowning death than becoming heroes by saving the man's life.
Torture Devices in History - ( New Window )
No, I don't think they would have.
I guess I separate it into two different, horrible things.
1. That they let him drown, mocked him, and refused to help him. That falls into the classic stereotype of evil that is being brought up here.
2. This is the technological part, that they felt compelled (in addition to watching him die) to record it, presumably with the intention to share socially. I find that equally disturbing as the first part.
It's awful that the man drowned, it's horrible that these little shits are so vile they sat and filmed and they should have probably helped. Their indifference does not make them pitiable. But the desire to create a victim and a perp is too strong here.
It's a shame they'd rather get likes and comments for a drowning death than becoming heroes by saving the man's life.
If the law compelled people to at least attempt to call 911 would that be an undue hardship?
It's awful that the man drowned, it's horrible that these little shits are so vile they sat and filmed and they should have probably helped. Their indifference does not make them pitiable. But the desire to create a victim and a perp is too strong here.
It's a shame they'd rather get likes and comments for a drowning death than becoming heroes by saving the man's life.
I get what you're saying, saving a drowning man is extremely dangerous. However, an obligation to call 9-1-1 to report what you're seeing doesn't seem like too much to ask for.
Quote:
The consequences are just unfathomable. What happens when the State compels me to risk my own life to save another? Or if while following a Bystander law, I make the situation considerably worse, despite trying to be a law abiding citizen. Am I now in the circle of potential defendants?
It's awful that the man drowned, it's horrible that these little shits are so vile they sat and filmed and they should have probably helped. Their indifference does not make them pitiable. But the desire to create a victim and a perp is too strong here.
It's a shame they'd rather get likes and comments for a drowning death than becoming heroes by saving the man's life.
If the law compelled people to at least attempt to call 911 would that be an undue hardship?
Quote:
The consequences are just unfathomable. What happens when the State compels me to risk my own life to save another? Or if while following a Bystander law, I make the situation considerably worse, despite trying to be a law abiding citizen. Am I now in the circle of potential defendants?
It's awful that the man drowned, it's horrible that these little shits are so vile they sat and filmed and they should have probably helped. Their indifference does not make them pitiable. But the desire to create a victim and a perp is too strong here.
It's a shame they'd rather get likes and comments for a drowning death than becoming heroes by saving the man's life.
If the law compelled people to at least attempt to call 911 would that be an undue hardship?
That's a pretty difficult concept to put into practice. What if no phone is available or I don't know where one is? What if I'm geographically close but unaware of the distress? What satisfies an attempt to call 911? How soon after the realization of the situation do I have to contact 911? Contemporaneously? Within 20 minutes? ASAP defined by what? If I walk to the phone, am I liable for not running? What if it's an ongoing situation and you may have to put yourself in harm's way to attempt that call...Etc. etc. etc. you get the idea.
They seemed to have been searching for some form of negligence in this case, but you can only be negligent when you owe a duty of care towards another person. We should want that to be consensual rather than coerced.
In my opinion, it's just a really dangerous concept that someone else can trigger an obligation on my part, merely for being in the vicinity of their misfortune. This is obviously not the moral argument.
Altho I also agree with many others who are not in favor of the good Samaritan laws. I believe people should always try to help others in trouble, no matter how serious or minor. However, I'm not in favor of a law compelling people to do so. I don't think you can legislate people to be 'good' persons. It's similar to the types of laws for anti-hate of certain groups - like a law requiring everyone to use the preferred pronoun of a trans person. Sure, we should all be respectful and refer to a person by their preference. No, I don't believe that should be required. It's a big leap from making a law against an action, to making a law requiring an action.
If too political no problem if mods delete with my apologies.
Altho I also agree with many others who are not in favor of the good Samaritan laws. I believe people should always try to help others in trouble, no matter how serious or minor. However, I'm not in favor of a law compelling people to do so. I don't think you can legislate people to be 'good' persons. It's similar to the types of laws for anti-hate of certain groups - like a law requiring everyone to use the preferred pronoun of a trans person. Sure, we should all be respectful and refer to a person by their preference. No, I don't believe that should be required. It's a big leap from making a law against an action, to making a law requiring an action.
If too political no problem if mods delete with my apologies.
I agree. The technology itself isn't to blame, just because it exists.
I like technology, hell, I'm using it to post right now on BBI and other sites/forums of hobbies I frequent. I buy and sell on Ebay all the time. I learn all kinds of cool stuff. It's great, and I don't hate it for existing.
Now, the other side, I have a 6 year old and a 2 year old, and I'm terrified of technology when it comes to them. Cyberbullying, Blue Whale suicide shit, sexting.... That scares me as a parent, and I'm going to do my due diligence and then some, but I know I can't/won't catch everything.
On the subject and all the discussion about the bystander laws: if you have the means to help, you should. I can't imagine a more black and white case of that here. Grey area aside, if the barest of minumim law were in place, these kids would have to face some sort of consequence.
This is a systemic failure on all levels: parents, schools, kids themselves. If there were ANY infrastructure available, I would hope this could have been prevented.
On the subject and all the discussion about the bystander laws: if you have the means to help, you should. I can't imagine a more black and white case of that here. Grey area aside, if the barest of minumim law were in place, these kids would have to face some sort of consequence.
This is a systemic failure on all levels: parents, schools, kids themselves. If there were ANY infrastructure available, I would hope this could have been prevented.
Quote:
And say I appreciate all the good work Deej put in to try and derail this.
On the subject and all the discussion about the bystander laws: if you have the means to help, you should. I can't imagine a more black and white case of that here. Grey area aside, if the barest of minumim law were in place, these kids would have to face some sort of consequence.
This is a systemic failure on all levels: parents, schools, kids themselves. If there were ANY infrastructure available, I would hope this could have been prevented.
i agree about the failures you mentioned. I'm just against government forcing you to do stuff, even if it's to be a normal decent person.
Bill
I agree with you. Except I can't fathom the lack of empathy from any of them.
Joking while watching someone die? I'm sure they would have each others back in a pinch, not.
definitely not, but if they admit to smoking pot they implicate themselves in a crime. shortsighted and selfish definitely, but what would you expect from anyone lacking maturity
Link - ( New Window )
“Hey, everybody, if I go to f—— jail for life, you already know why,” she began, adjusting the camera so that it showed her younger sister, motionless and bleeding from the head.
“My sister is f—— dying. Look, I f—— love my sister to death. I don’t give a f—. Man, we about to die. This is the last thing I wanted to happen to us, but it just did. Jacqueline, please wake up.”
Another girl screamed in the background.
“I don’t f‑‑‑‑‑‑ care though,” Sanchez continued. “I’m a hold it down. I love you, rest in peace, sweetie. If you don’t survive, baby, I am so f‑‑‑‑‑‑ sorry. I did not mean to kill you, sweetie. Sweetie, I am f‑‑‑‑‑‑ sorry. Sweetie, please, wake up!”
Our society is nearly completely based on social media now. To turn a blind eye to that, and the effect it has on children, or think that it is the same as it ever was, is incredibly short sighted.
Link - ( New Window )
I blame the schools.