this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
39 points (82.0% liked)

World News

41602 readers
5338 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod
jordanlund
Tenthrow
little_cow
lemmyAtom
39
Extreme online violence may be linked to rise of ‘0 to 100’ killers, experts say (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The rise of “0 to 100” killers who go from watching torture, mutilation and beheading videos in their bedrooms to committing murder suggests there could be a link between extreme violence online and in real life, experts have said.

Criminal justice experts advocated a new approach, inspired by counter-terrorism, to identify an emerging type of murderer with no prior convictions, after cases such as Nicholas Prosper, who killed his mother and siblings and planned a primary school massacre.

Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said there was a “new threat cohort” combining terrorists who were radicalised online and those who had “gone down a rabbit hole and into a dark world”.

He said: “There are quite a lot of similarities: they are isolated loners, boys rather than girls; the internet is obviously central; quite a high proportion have neurodivergence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 days ago (2 children)

"People watching torture, mutilation, and beheading videos for entertainment" is probably not the place to be taring the scale. That's already pretty fucked up, in my book. Like, easily already at 50 and cruising higher at a rapid rate.

[–] givesomefucks 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, but the people who do go on to do that shit, would be the most likely to seek it out, and history shows people still would do those crimes without online video.

And a non zero were given treatment because those videos leave a trail and some get caught.

The answer to this stuff is rarely simple, and the actual findings are often counterintuitive.

Basically:

We have no idea until we study, and we can't really ethically study this. We'd have to force a control group of impressionable kids to watch those videos.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I think I get what you are saying, but also, I'm not sure my point got across entirely. The article and headline use this "from 0 to 100" verbiage to imply a rapid acceleration from being at rest (as in, 0mph) to suddenly moving at a very high velocity (100mph). And that is relating people who watch snuff films to the at-rest part of the analogy, no effort spent, just coasting along... a default state, if you will. And, of course, the real wacko ones that end up just happening to take it a bit too far are the ones that just suddenly find themselves going 100mph, having obviously had to expend a great deal of energy in pursuit of that sudden delta-v.

I'm saying, on that kind of a scale, the people that would never even consider the existence of smut and, upon hearing about it, would be far too revolted to want to have to see it, has a velocity so far in the negative that it's probably worth considering setting the 0 in the scale to the people who are all the way on the smut-is-gross-and-also-a-red-flag end of the dichotomy on this issue? That's got to make more sense than setting 0 at "they watch that nasty shit but don't, like, act on it" as the 0-point, doesn't it?

[–] Paragone 2 points 1 day ago

The problem is in at-least 3 parts:

desensitization, AND feeding real psychopathy/sadism, AND normalizing such things..

moving the entire bell-curve is the problem.

or changing its shape..

People don't accept that murder is a form of expression, same as speech is..

Within your body, your immune-system, if it is working-properly, disallows the expression of cancer, pathogens, & parasites, right?

But people hold that it is possible to have a country who is healthy, which doesn't disallow the expression of moral-cancer, moral-pathogens, & moral-parasites, of course..

( "nobody has ANY right to restrict ANY expression, even treason, even murder! it's a RIGHT" would be a too-accurate simplification of many ideologues' won't-think "muscle" )

Exemption-from-accountability/exemption-from-responsibility, aka corruption, is all it really is.

tired of being gaslit, but that's all that's left, in this world, it seems.

( btw, I'm not attacking your perspective: you're right. Anybody already doing human-butchery-for-entertainment is somebody who needs to be found & limited/mitigated, before the "indulge" in butchering somebody.

I'm just getting these points into this page of discussions, to get the perspective recorded, is all..

There's a yt channel, LADbible I think it's called, & for some reason they've got some good in-depth interviews of, e.g. a woman who hunts the guys who destroy women's lives for kicks..

She set-up the equivalent-to the FBI's personality-profiling unit, in the UK..

Please watch that video, because what she tells us about stalkers, that they have MUCH higher liklihood of murdering ( something like 1/8 of 'em murder their victim? waaay too high, that ), & therefore stalking NEEDS to be considered to be a life-threat at that level..

I wish the Good Guys were winning, in this world, but it'll take years to put the balance back, for some portion of the world, now..

but the alternative is to simply lose the world..

here: I think this is it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrvWPGRnUwk

How can we support her & others doing the same kind of work?

we need clearer government, for 1 thing..

anyways, such are dangerous, & feeding their sickness does have consequences..

that's what we've got to find the spine to correct.

_ /\ _