Wasn't expecting something like this in here, holy hell.

[deleted]

Approved? Is this 4chan/8chan now?

There's already one of 'her' making a >_< face while dropping magazines everywhere. The tagging is just bad and I'm pretty sure the art is worse than usual for this website (even with the arbitrary quality requirements)

top lel

Oh my goodness. This is so offensive, and yet I'm laughing so much.
I'm going to get another negative record for liking this, right?

[deleted]

Someone is going to hell for this.

...but the Serbia Strong theme started playing in my head. Very well done.

Being a German, I'm not laughing! NOT A BIT! We had some fascist nutballs, calling themselves the NSU ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground ), killing systematically Turkish shopkeepers while the police wasn't able to "connect the dots". Self-appointed crusaders are ASSHOLES, in every race, creed and color!

This kind of makes me wonder about how the Japanese view Muslims, much less foreigners in general.

(Also, interesting that this got approved but not this)

On this episode of : "You'll never see it coming".

boredman23 said:

This kind of makes me wonder about how the Japanese view Muslims, much less foreigners in general.

(Also, interesting that this got approved but not this)

Not saying this one should have been approved but at least it has quality compared to that other one, it's just bad.

>"weird religions"
>"either side of this"

Is the English translation of the commentary accurate? Because, pardon me for saying so, that makes the artist sound like an a-hole.

It would basically be Morimiya Middle School Shooting: Mosque Edition.

Unless it's VR supported, then we have something noteworthy.

AquaticGoddess said:

>"weird religions"
>"either side of this"

Is the English translation of the commentary accurate? Because, pardon me for saying so, that makes the artist sound like an a-hole.

May be so, but I think artist wanted a hard statement on his stance of religion as a whole, while indeed sounding offensively.
Artist in not pitying this half-hunded victims of this incident. He pointing out that we are watching a new trends in terrorism that use instant-spreading internet culture "to send messages".
Remember - terrorism is not about killing few dozens, but about keeping in fear few millions. Pretty much ironic, as we comment on this current event at internet culture spreading gallery.

Based and redpilled.

The only thing I have to ask is "why?"

[deleted]

Guaro1238 said:

it is really weird how he talks about memes. Sounds more like he has to justify drawing weird stuff like that

Not really, given that the shooter in real life was spewing memes like your average #chan post during the event.

Flagged for bad face and hands

Seriously? This screams abuse of the flagging system.

darkspire91 said:

Seriously? This screams abuse of the flagging system.

I think some people are mad. If this gets deleted then that means site administration allows priority to morality over site quality rules.

The artists specifically said the person in question is a criminal, so it's hard to paint him as sympathetic to the shooter. The artist is drawing our attention towards the Information Warfare nature of this attack. The shooter was aiming to "meme-ify" himself and thus immortalize his story, so by making the incident memorable he's ensured himself that people will be talking about it for a long time after (think "Oklahoma City Bomber" level of infamy).

(Let this be stated here, though. I am horrified by this incident. What kind of extremist mindset do you need to have to be so near-sighted that you can't separate fiction from reality and attack innocent people at all.)

[deleted]

AdventZero said:

The shooter was aiming to "meme-ify" himself and thus immortalize his story, so by making the incident memorable he's ensured himself that people will be talking about it for a long time after (think "Oklahoma City Bomber" level of infamy).

I don't really think the meme aspect really has anything to do with memorability. For decades law enforcement has urged the media to not glorify any acts of terrorism such as shootings but the media has continued to broadcast and highlight terrorists because it boosts ratings. Ultimately though, the general consensus is that the only way for terrorism to end is for LE departments to expand intelligence networks (and by default the means for collecting information) and for the general populace to be armed. In the end who is remembered and for what doesn't make all that much difference if we aren't able to stop killers in the first place.

boredman23 said:

This kind of makes me wonder about how the Japanese view Muslims, much less foreigners in general.

(Also, interesting that this got approved but not this)

As far as I know Japanese don't care what religion you are, they hate all foreigners equally. :D But in seriousness, they don't mind Islam unless you bring in sharia law or cause civil disturbance/crime, like any other person. Cause trouble and of course they won't like you, be polite and agreeable and you will be accepted.

Qpax said:

If this gets deleted then that means site administration allows priority to morality over site quality rules.

No, it means more people disliked it enough to flag it than there were approvers willing it sit and take turns poking the Approve button.

Qpax said:

I think some people are mad. If this gets deleted then that means site administration allows priority to morality over site quality rules.

There are rules against hatespeech in the comments section, and people do get banned for that. Why is it that you assume literally anything can be said in the uploads themselves without judgement? (And this sort of discussion has come up before, about the difference between something like a loli Hitler picture or something that actually celebrates fascism or terrorism or genocide.)

The problem I see is more that people aren't willing to just do the obvious and say that's why they're flagging something, and using "quality" because some of the approvers are apparently not willing to accept there are any other standards.

So art with guro and anime girls shooting up schools is okay, but one shooting döners is haram?
Get your heads out of your asses people and stop getting offended for the sake of being offended.

Hi, I flagged this image. To clear up any speculation, I fully believe this girl has a poorly-shaded, misshapen potato face and the hands of an infant, and art of this quality would not be approved in any normal circumstance.

I felt dirty fixing the typos in the commentary; but I encourage this filth to stay up.

It took a long time for me to realize she was literally shooting kebab.

I sort of get what the long-winded rant is trying to say to justify the creation of this, namely that this event, more than any other, showed the powers of 'memes' to push people to commit acts in the real world they normally wouldn't. In most cases this is probably something rather unproductive but harmless like doing a stupid pose at a famous landmark or what not. The idea that internet culture can push people to become just as self-radicalized as political and religious sub-cultures isn't new, but it was never really as blatant as it was here. I suppose the problem is that, throughout history, the idea of self-radicalization isn't new nor was it unobserved.

The stellar example to me is the Black Hand, being a group of radical Serbian army officers with no direct ties to the group, the Young Bosnians, who committed the assassination. The Young Bosnians were, largely, young Serbs and Bosniaks who got really inspired and ended up assassinating the Archduke due to believing that the reforms aimed at greater autonomy were a threat to the potential statehood of a Yugoslavian government. In short, you have a radical and young, disenfranchised young adults who don't care for the specifics of their ideology or the systems they are against, are aware on some level of the futility of trying to enact their belief systems, and decide on a suicidal course of action that aims to force the issue.

Regardless, the creator doesn't really have any sympathy for either party. I don't get the feeling they condone it, but they don't have any interest in the event beyond its relation to meme theory.

[deleted]

79248cm/s said:

Ultimately though, the general consensus is that the only way for terrorism to end is for LE departments to expand intelligence networks (and by default the means for collecting information) and for the general populace to be armed. In the end who is remembered and for what doesn't make all that much difference if we aren't able to stop killers in the first place.

"general populace to be armed"

Providing this general populace isn't Muslim, of course. Then its just an invasion. But allowing someone with more money than sense to open carry a m16a1 with an integrated colt scope, an attachable spork bayonet for encounters of the cuisine kind, a browning brand adjustable Remington stock, and an under-barrel bazooka is going to help school children not get shot or stabbed to death because someone managed to get/steal/buy/borrow their implement of choice.

My stance on the gun control part is that we have laws already that prohibit a lot of things that leads to shootings, but that there are always gaps in the existing infrastructure that allows for people to commit crimes anyways. Adding more surveillance and infringing on individual rights, regardless of the intention, isn't going to change the paranoid worldview of a lot of militia types, nor fix the disenfranchisement and self-radicalization of individuals in society that then leads to them, on their own, committing acts of terror. These people don't have deep connections with organizations, they don't even have ties to small, independent cells aligned with these organizations.

One eye-opening course I took was focused on terrorism (from a law enforcement perspective) that went over the free-agent idea: A lot of major acts of terror are committed by individuals or groups that are not only fringe, but are not easily detectable prior to the final stages of their operation. As a result, there isn't a real pattern or infrastructure that can be monitored. As I said before with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, conventional logic would lead to the idea that a moderate figure sympathetic to the Balkans and seeking more autonomy for the region would be targeted by people who are against this, not a radical group who want a new state that feel that this would endanger their goal by placating the population. From this, I think its a fool's errand to believe that any one approach will ever be able to stop free-agents, but instead be able to lessen their potential to cause harm and chaos. I don't think taking away a citizen's right to, for example, be able to spend their money on an automatic weapon will stop this issue, since there are already laws and regulations that make it difficult to do so. Someone who wants a .960 (that exists, and it was approved solely because whoever's desk it happened upon for approval basically said it was such a silly thing that why the hell not), single shot smooth-bore gun may have to go through hoops, but if they can get it, sure why not. All this talk about military-style rifles and gun control misses the goal here: limit, or eliminate, the threat of effectively undetectable agents looking to inflict a great harm for the sake of disrupting society and threatening specific sections of it.

Law enforcement, at least in the US, is an inherently reactionary (meaning they react to events, rather than prevent them, nothing to do with political ideology) institution that, whether through patrol, operations. or presence, has shown a considerable inability to prevent crimes from occurring. To me this means that law enforcement isn't really the solution as much as the bureaucracy and other state institutions, ranging from oversight to planning to zoning, have to be able to manage itself otherwise the tension is going to remain and the defects are going to continue to enable major sources of harm.

Saladofstones said:

...

I'm for all law abiding people to be armed, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Left, Right, White, Black, Brown, Yellow, Red, etc, even former criminals who have served their time (if they are still a threat, why are we even releasing them back into the public in the first place?) Everyone needs the ability for self defense because no matter how well trained our rapid response teams are, they can't arrive fast enough (due to reactionary nature as you note) making the victim the first responder. Sometimes authorities don't arrive at all due to emergency conditions such as natural disasters. Same reason why I have also always encouraged people to learn first aid, to have good fire fighting capabilities, and a solid cache of portable emergency supplies.

By expanding intel networks I don't mean infringing on anyone's Constitutional rights. We can get the info we need, it is just a matter of being allowed to disseminate it into intelligence that can be used and shared. It may surprise a lot of people but while we have a lot of tabs on known threats, we are often not allowed to act on it due to local politics (this of course varies depending where in the country you are in). Many people will be surprised at how many criminals are repeat offenders because of this. This was something that we had once fixed which ended the era of gangsters, but now we are repeating history.

There is no way to eliminate threats without simultaneously eliminating free will. There are countless examples of law abiding people suddenly committing heinous crimes without warning, sometimes even well respected members of our community. I do not think the solution lies in governance, except that leaders need to get out of the way of LE doing their job and people's ability to defend themselves. Criminals will always exist, which is why many have always despised the term "war on ___". It implies success can only be achieved by elimination of a problem. It is true that law enforcement do not "prevent" crimes since it is impossible to know a crime was prevented if it never happened, but we do know that the more aggressive LE presence is and the less bull our officers have to deal with, the general populace quickly "gets" it and crime stats tend to reflect this change. I have personally been among radicals and interviewed them as part of my specialty, and the thing with them is that aside for what they believe, they are the same as you or me. They do not want to die if they can help it (and actually many of these criminal organizations want to avoid suicidal people because they become an unstable double edged sword). When they know violence is unlikely to have easy success and people are serious about fighting back when attacked, they tend to avoid violence as a solution. After all, bank robberies still happen but why are we not as concerned about them like we were in the mid 20th century? Because we have bolstered our defensive capabilities to the point that armed robbery is almost destined for failure or practically suicide. Basically the act of committing the crime becomes a mechanism for us to cut off the previously unknown criminal elements.

Media isn't the major part of the solution, but it is an element of the problem. The media always talks about terrorism and "mass shootings" as if they are somehow an untouchable and persistent threat even if they become rare, and successes for our side are rarely reported with as much enthusiasm such as when a successful raid occurs or a would-be victim turns the table on his assaulter. It basically ends up giving free propaganda and infamy/glory for criminals that we are so concerned with them. Columbine was a perfect example of this phenomenon. More people die from car crashes than murders, yet very few are terrified from their daily commute. Media does have a major influence in perception/propaganda.

For example if a would-be terrorist charges into a school and even if they are somehow able to shoot a kid but is then immediately downed by a teacher/plain clothes security, unless we make it into an epidemic, the end result is no different than the common late night murder that happens all over the world. Whoever stopped the bad guy should be praised and we move on. Certainly any premature loss of life is still tragic, but doesn't send us into a an unreasonable national panic.

"For example if a would-be terrorist charges into a school and even if they are somehow able to shoot a kid but is then immediately downed by a teacher/plain clothes security, unless we make it into an epidemic, the end result is no different than the common late night murder that happens all over the world. Whoever stopped the bad guy should be praised and we move on. Certainly any premature loss of life is still tragic, but doesn't send us into a an unreasonable national panic. "

that's a lot of ifs not backed by anything concrete. All it takes is for a teacher to accidentally shoot themselves or a student for it to become a maelstorm. I mean, trained police officers have a marked tendency to just open fire blindly when someone opens fire, can you imagine an armed teacher/security guard without nearly the training and whose job isn't to be a lawful combatant? This is like saying the solution to every murder is martial law since no one will get hurt since soldiers are perfect beings capable of handling a tense crowd

The problem with premature loss of life is that police officers are the one, by law and by theory, that are specifically selected, applied, and trained to make that distinction. There are entire court cases, up to the supreme court, and many, many training courses that explore how to make that distinction and a common rule of thumb when it comes to police officers is "what would any professional do in that situation and state as their reason for doing so."

A teacher isn't someone whose job is to able to handle a firearm and make those decisions, we already have enough issues with our education system, deciding to take money out of programs to fund classes is not going to help with the issues. Besides, anyone who is going to seriously contemplate an act of terrorism is going to consider and factor in security. You have terrorists who assault military convoys in a warzone, you have terrorists who go to a remote island dressed as a police officer and use that to their advantage since the level of deference we give to people who act like they should be there is a known psychological trait and not one that is easy to fix.

You're basically asking for damage control without addressing any of the issues that are causing these acts of terror to occur to begin with.

Saladofstones said:
...

Its backed by thousands of people who stopped shootings and crime throughout the country every year, almost daily. How do you not shoot yourself or a student? 4 rules of gun safety. Same as cars. How do you not get in a crash every time you hop in? You follow the rules of the road. I don't know how your local department is, but if an officer ever opened fire blindly they would be fired on the spot and prosecuted for negligence. You also assume officers have more training and you may be surprised to find out that is absolutely not the case. Most officers only fire a gun during a few days of training when they go through academy and only about 3 times per year after that. This is because officers have to learn many other skills not necessarily related to self-defense which occupies training time. It isn't until you get into paramilitary outfits like SWAT that tactical training and not just qualifiers becomes more mandatory. Even then, you don't need to be trained as a specialist in order to be able to defend yourself. Many people think using a firearm in self defense is difficult because most people have not experienced it before. While the situation can be made extraordinarily difficult (example: multiple armed individuals facing you) but these situations are much more rare than the typical single threat.

Your solution is to wait on a backup that we know will not come in time to save lives. When seconds count, police are minutes away. Is the current status quo with how we respond to shootings acceptable? Your assumption on the incompetency of the general public is less concrete in my opinion, especially since LE and Mil tend to come from the general public. Anyone who has served in either outlet can attest that incompetence does not go away just because you wear a uniform.

The parameters of court cases are not that complex for reasoning among civilians. If a person shoots another, you see if they shot due to and only during an immediate threat, which turns it into justifiable homicide. The complexity of cases stem from determining what evidence is relevant, and none of that matters to the individual as they are fighting in fear of their life. The officer reasoning is more complex than the average civilian because officers have the duty to enforce the law, which is why they are allowed to shoot even if the suspect is not posing an immediate threat, but they recognize an impending threat. For example, an officer can shoot a criminal running away if he believes they pose a danger to the public (running people over trying to escape, taking passerby's hostage) but an average Joe cannot. This is a point of common confusion among the public which is why we always have cases of "police brutality" paraded by people who don't understand the legalities of these situations.

Funding isn't the problem with our educational system. Historically if you look at student performance it has declined as funding has increased. The problem isn't how much money you throw at a problem but what you are doing with that money. Security is priority number one. It doesn't matter how good a teacher or student is if they both die.

A teacher's is entrusted with our children. They may not want to learn how to use a firearm, but there are a lot of things we do in our careers that we don't want to do because of duty. Teachers are not immune from fulfilling the duty of their position.

Having armed individuals already at the site that a terrorist/criminal would target is clearly a measure of security. Think of a class like a convoy and us as the company assigned to escort it. Does it make sense for that convoy to have their own trigger pullers or not? Even though what you are protecting may be surrounded by mobile patrols, you always arm what you are defending in case of gaps in security (which will inherently happen if you are not quarantining the area, such as with schools where we inherently need people to go in and out) The only cases where the principle is not armed is where they are directly protected by people who are armed 24/7. Can we afford to have an armed security guard in every classroom? No. However we can arm teachers. Should we arm children? No, because they won't have the maturity to learn how to use a gun effectively depending on their age. Consequentially the children are the unarmed principle and the teachers are the armed principle. All security exists in layers.

You mention the possibility of terrorists dressing a fake officers, that only further exemplifies the reason for teachers to be armed. If everyone is deceived, realization of the threat will only happen at the last moment, when the deceiver pulls out a gun and starts shooting people. At that time we are already behind the OODA loop. Not arming people will not help in this situation, but armed people who witness the deception can respond immediately as opposed to the lemming effect where responding officers come in, get tricked like the victims, and we end up sending more people in until someone who witnesses the deception is also able to successfully engage.

Yes, I am asking for damage control without addressing the issues that cause terror. As even you stated in your comment, you cannot prevent people from committing evil acts, only to lessen it. I agree. But what are we going to do about those few people who continue to enact terrorism anyways? Armed "victims" are the solution.

Not to get in the way of a political discussion, but it's worth mentioning that this isn't what the kebab tag is for.

"Not even that good" - get out, this is better than 50% that is uploaded and approved. What really happened is that you're offended and pushing for deletion because of that.

[deleted]

artstalker43 said:

"Not even that good" - get out, this is better than 50% that is uploaded and approved. What really happened is that you're offended and pushing for deletion because of that.

Yes, we are. Regardless of political alignment, there should be zero room for politics on a site meant for sharing pics of moé animu artwork and sexy hentai. If you want to go on debating forever without a point, go to Reddit instead.

So I guess the mods are gonna play dumb and let the third time be the charm.

Are we gonna start deleting things we find offensive now? Should we mass delete the rape tag? That's the precedent we're setting it seems.

I never knew that Serbia Strong became such a copyrighted catchphrase.

CrystalLeaf said:

Yes, we are. Regardless of political alignment, there should be zero room for politics on a site meant for sharing pics of moé animu artwork and sexy hentai. If you want to go on debating forever without a point, go to Reddit instead.

Uh-huh, that's why it's currently filled to the brim with pro-Palestine edits.