148
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
148 points (99.3% liked)
News
23774 readers
3256 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They refrain from mentioning what trend, what dating app, and what slurs these teens were using. But based off context my best guess is that these guys were convincing some gay men they were down to hook up only to just assault them instead. Why you would want to do this, I have no idea. I know kids do shitty things but I think these guys were just shitty people.
And what kind of fucking internet trend involves luring people just to assault them? If that's the kinda content you consume as an individual you're a fucking idiot.
Yeah, social media trends aren't the problem here. Being a piece of shit is the problem.
Social media is a factor. Unmoderated content encouraging violence results in events like these.
Is it though? That kind of sounds like the next iteration of blaming movies/video games/d&d/whatever the latest crazy is.
The thing is, the boomers of the past were wrong because none of that media was promoting violence. They were making it up.
The Tiktok algorithm promotes violence as a fast-pass to fame. It rewards people for making abhorrent trends with clicks.
I don't know, it's hard to argue that the action movies of 40 years ago or games like Postal weren't glorifying violence.
Though I can certainly see an argument about the difference based on the fact that movies/TV/video games are all imaginary vs the actual violence in something like this.
The question is, does "glorifying violence" encourage people to be violent? Barring other factors, studies have not found that to be the case. There are some studies that show video games actually reduce stress hormones by giving people a release, and this might actually lower violence.
It's a lot different to connect violent rhetoric with gay bashing, refer to gays as predators, then provide a template for how to ambush them.
The major difference is that the app is the not content, it is the bridge to actioning.
This one has scientific backing. Just Google any combination of terms and you'll find studies showing harm.
Why don't you and post a few links?
I wasn't sure exactly which aspect of harm they were talking about, so I left it up to them.
Let’s do the butterfly knife to the eyes challenge it’s on TikTok…
I prefer the Fargo Challenge! Who wants to look at my woodchipper?
The trend is of homophobes luring homosexual men to be attacked using the app Gr*****r. It's been gaining steam since Trump won the first time and has escalated again after the latest win. In many places it will not be prosecuted unless it gains media attention. And most gay men in those kinda of areas don't want to be out, so don't even report it. So it's becoming more common.
And the solution is to make such hate crimes dangerous. Gay bashing used to be more common, but armed f*gs bash back, and that reduced it
Further reading on the historical context of "f*gs bash back" for anyone curious: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Nation
I haven't heard that slogan since the 90s. Really shows how far we've come, and now we're sliding right back.
For real? My guess would be bigotry and homophobia?
Yeah, for sure that's the reason. But at the end of the day I still don't get it.
ah back in my day we didn't need an app or to even be out to get the shit kicked out of us for being gay*
funnily enough my bullies knew better I was gay* than I did
*bi
Ya if it was a group of 16 year olds luring a pedophile than all the power to them.
If it was a group of 18 year olds just luring a gay man and assaulting him for his sexuality then hopefully they get tried as adults and put behind bars for a good number of years.
It says right in the summary at the top that all the teens were 16 or 17.
What it doesn't say is what age they presented themselves as when luring these people out to be assaulted.