Jump to content
Miro

Boston Bombing

Recommended Posts

Jurisdiction is stupid. Everyone has the right to judge anything. Also, if people authentically care more about Boston than other instances of violence, they might be assholes.

 

The alternative is to care about Boston, but only a little. Probably not enough to talk about it, since you'd have other priorities. I don't endorse that alternative since I figure that it's inevitable others are going to talk about it and also I'm not perfect. But regardless, Hulk's not a nihilist, he's more the opposite. He's sort of overflowing with emotions and weighting them equally while you're just boxing them into little categories that you artificially privilege. I like his position better than yours, although I like my own best of all.

That sounds all good, until Hulk starts distancing himself from all violence and is now only discussing bombings... Now who's boxing them into little categories? Either way, it's literally impossible to value all of these events equally (and even then, you're stilling looking at it from an anthropocentric perspective).. There have to be limits, not only is it impossible, but it's in human nature to value events greater than others. 

Also, what's your position?

Edit: Also, inherently, Hulk is valuing certain things over others, he's discussing bombing in the middle east, in Israel, why not discuss the war in the Congo (the deadliest war since WWII). Is he racist for not mentioning those? Is he nationalist? No... but here's where it gets ridiculous.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jurisdiction is stupid. Everyone has the right to judge anything. 

 

No, specific instances of jurisdiction are stupid. We can say "that instance of jurisdiction is stupid" in comparison to other ones. A qualified scientist evaluating forensic evidence > an undergrad liberal arts major evaluating forensic evidence = an eleven year old evaluating forensic evidence. In this instance Hulk is proposing that his ability to "know" suffering or whatever is better, even though it's impossible.

 

Miro & Bannister might be expressing sympathy toward Boston, just as they would toward other forms of suffering - but when Hulk says "Look at the other suffering but you won't cause you don't give a fuck," then he runs into serious problems when positing that he does give a fuck or at least avoids this criticism in some way. He couches it in "I didn't say all forms of violence have to be considered" but that's just a concession that Miro and Bannister were right in the first instance - if not all have to be considered, then some do, and there's no reason why we should strive to add "and the Congo...and Palestine...and Tibet" every time, like Bannister notes, it's impossible.

 

You say that Hulk's not a nihilist but when his "overflowing emotions" require that all sympathy be exchanged equally and to all (which itself is impossible) then it's nothing short of nihilism, even if it's couched in language of "de-limiting the categories of privileged violence" or whatever. That's nice and idealistic but as you say, you're not perfect, and neither's anyone else. It's not worth straining yourself to stop "privileging" instances of violence...which doesn't make sense anyway because privilege bestows good on the privileged thing. Violence and trauma aren't being promoted, they're being condemned.

 

The real alternative is stop getting so mad at people expressing sympathy for those grieving lost ones and just do it when it flipping matters. When my classroom at school prays together for the dead and injured they're not pissing their time away, it's a real and beautiful tribute to those harmed - religious or not. And I'm not. Tears aren't made of bullshit and neither are paid sympathies. Maybe we will learn about more violence in the world one day, and grieve for that too, but let's not shit all over each other just because some don't have the knowledge of all worldly suffering, or any particular instance of it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Hulk was backtracking, I think he shouldn't have.

I disagree that any of you care very much about this violence. I don't think that any of you lost loved ones or have cried over this event, that's blatantly false. It's exactly the kind of social posturing that makes me feel a little bit disgusted. I understand that social posturing is somewhat inevitable, so I don't hate when people do it anymore, but I still dislike it very much.

I don't even think that this event is even worth crying over - if we cried every time that a few dozen people got killed, we would never stop. Millions have died, billions will too, so why should we devote our attention to this one incident? Humans have limited emotional resources as well as tangible ones, so instead of focusing on one minor tragedy and making a big show and national event out of it we should instead focus our efforts and our feelings on the things that really do matter. It might feel nice to act as though we're the kind of people who cry every time a bomb goes off, but that just isn't possible, and acting that way is only going to make us think of ourselves as good people, it's not actually going to solve anything. In that sense, mourning minor "catastrophes" is often selfish, because its main purpose is to promote one's status and to promote one's self image, instead of to stop actual catastrophes from happening.

You might portray me and the Hulk as heartless. That's not the case. For me, when I think of the total sum of violence, I don't get sad, I go totally numb. It's not that it doesn't hurt, it's that it hurts so much the nerves burn off and it's difficult to feel anymore. When I feel like that, and then I see others responding with paltry shows of emotion, it makes me angry and upset. The overblown reaction to the very small individual tragedy seems more coldblooded than the actual bombing, because that reaction should be about a million times worse and should be focused on other things, since Boston barely matters at all compared to those things. Again, it's something I need to work on, because that reaction isn't practical given that most people act like that. But, I'm not capable of just suppressing these emotions entirely, and I don't like seeing people exploit these deaths to make themselves think of themselves as good people.

A big part of our disagreement relates to the idea of authenticity. Many of you seem to be approaching this issue as though no one else has the right to judge your feelings or behavior. I think that's bullshit, just a way to hide from criticisms and to wrap yourself in a cocoon of narcissism. Everyone is constantly judged all the time, and should be, because if people didn't judge others then there'd be no way for life to function. If I see someone doing something that I don't think is authentic, I'm going to act on that perception unless they prove me wrong. So, if I'm wrong and any of you do have a desperate passion for these people who died, then you'll have to show me doing something other than whining about it on an internet forum. Have you given blood or donated money? Did any of you actually cry? Why do you care so much about this one particular event? Just telling me that you're sad isn't very believable, in fact, I'm skeptical that any of you are sad because humans aren't really built to care about this stuff very often.

I think that last question gets at other important and tangentially related point. I think that there are people who really do care about the deaths. However, I also think these people are basically being manipulated. If you get all worked up about the death of a handful of people in Boston, yet you don't get worked up about the deaths of thousands or millions in other countries, I'm not capable of having much respect for you. I sort of admire that you feel so emotional. But at the same time, your emotions are misguided because they're precluding you from actually helping anyone else.

The only thing that matters to me is the people. I don't respect the reaction to their deaths at all, even though I respect the deaths. I was asked what my alternative is, I guess I'd say that I want people to not try to manipulate emotional reactions in others and to only be emotional if they truly care, which I don't think will usually happen unless they personally know someone involved. I mostly want people to focus on the big picture and not get distracted by the minor flashy events.

TL;DR - I'm a bitter and cynical idealist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of you seem to be approaching this issue as though no one else has the right to judge your feelings or behavior. I think that's bullshit, just a way to hide from criticisms and to wrap yourself in a cocoon of narcissism. 

Who, were? This is exactly the type of thing that was happening on the racism thread, arguments without warrants. Where did I ever say that you don't have the right to judge my behavior? That is bullshit, because obviously, you should be able to. But GJ at making up things that people said to make them look bad.

 

 

Have you given blood or donated money? 

Nitpicking here, but you don't need to donate blood.

 

I think that a lot of the logic here is right. However, with that said, I think that if you keep on thinking this way, you become too "numb" to actually do anything about it. Like, hey look, here are all these disabled people whose voices can't be heard, but who cares, there is all this other suffering to think and be "numb" about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't talking about you with regards to the jurisdiction thing. Bannister said "he knows nothing about me" as though that was a reason Hulk shouldn't try to make criticisms. Dancon made a dumb analogy to scientists, as though there's some kind of degree in social perception that's necessary for you to have before you make judgment claims about others. Those are who I was addressing. That assertion didn't appear out of thin air.

I agree that becoming overly numb is a potential problem. I want to work on that. But, I also get more numb if I sit through the playacting without ever speaking up against it. I have to maintain a balance. I think the best solution is to pick a priority and stick with it. I'm still in the process of picking mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't talking about you with regards to the jurisdiction thing. Bannister said "he knows nothing about me" as though that was a reason Hulk shouldn't try to make criticisms. Dancon made a dumb analogy to scientists, as though there's some kind of degree in social perception that's necessary for you to have before you make judgment claims about others. Those are who I was addressing. That assertion didn't appear out of thin air.

 

I agree that becoming overly numb is a potential problem. I want to work on that. But, I also get more numb if I sit through the playacting without ever speaking up against it. I have to maintain a balance.

But not all of it is playacting... I disagree with you there too... I think it's real, I think that people are just inherently more affected by things they can see easily and are judged to be closer to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But not all of it is playacting... I disagree with you there too... I think it's real, I think that people are just inherently more affected by things they can see easily and are judged to be closer to them.

I agree that some of it is real. I don't have a problem with that per se, just with the lack of an equivalent reaction in cases where the media might not be as focused, like you discuss (although if they cried every time anything bad happened, that wouldn't be a pragmatically useful character trait). I don't think we disagree very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Hulk was backtracking, I think he shouldn't have.

 

I disagree that any of you care very much about this violence. I don't think that any of you lost loved ones or have cried over this event, that's blatantly false. It's exactly the kind of social posturing that makes me feel a little bit disgusted. I understand that social posturing is somewhat inevitable, so I don't hate when people do it anymore, but I still dislike it very much.

 

I don't even think that this event is even worth crying over - if we cried every time that a few dozen people got killed, we would never stop. Millions have died, billions will too, so why should we devote our attention to this one incident? Humans have limited emotional resources as well as tangible ones, so instead of focusing on one minor tragedy and making a big show and national event out of it we should instead focus our efforts and our feelings on the things that really do matter. It might feel nice to act as though we're the kind of people who cry every time a bomb goes off, but that just isn't possible, and acting that way is only going to make us think of ourselves as good people, it's not actually going to solve anything. In that sense, mourning minor "catastrophes" is often selfish, because its main purpose is to promote one's status and to promote one's self image, instead of to stop actual catastrophes from happening.

 

You might portray me and the Hulk as heartless. That's not the case. For me, when I think of the total sum of violence, I don't get sad, I go totally numb. It's not that it doesn't hurt, it's that it hurts so much the nerves burn off and it's difficult to feel anymore. When I feel like that, and then I see others responding with paltry shows of emotion, it makes me angry and upset. The overblown reaction to the very small individual tragedy seems more coldblooded than the actual bombing, because that reaction should be about a million times worse and should be focused on other things, since Boston barely matters at all compared to those things. Again, it's something I need to work on, because that reaction isn't practical given that most people act like that. But, I'm not capable of just suppressing these emotions entirely, and I don't like seeing people exploit these deaths to make themselves think of themselves as good people.

 

A big part of our disagreement relates to the idea of authenticity. Many of you seem to be approaching this issue as though no one else has the right to judge your feelings or behavior. I think that's bullshit, just a way to hide from criticisms and to wrap yourself in a cocoon of narcissism. Everyone is constantly judged all the time, and should be, because if people didn't judge others then there'd be no way for life to function. If I see someone doing something that I don't think is authentic, I'm going to act on that perception unless they prove me wrong. So, if I'm wrong and any of you do have a desperate passion for these people who died, then you'll have to show me doing something other than whining about it on an internet forum. Have you given blood or donated money? Did any of you actually cry? Why do you care so much about this one particular event?

 

I think that last question gets at other important and tangentially related point. I think that there are people who really do care about the deaths. However, I also think these people are basically being manipulated. If you get all worked up about the death of a handful of people in Boston, yet you don't get worked up about the deaths of thousands or millions in other countries, I'm not capable of having much respect for you. I sort of admire that you feel so emotional. But at the same time, your emotions are misguided because they're precluding you from actually helping anyone else.

 

The only thing that matters to me is the people. I don't respect the reaction to their deaths at all, even though I respect the deaths.

 

TL;DR - under pragmatic utilitarian constraints minor tragedies don't warrant this response, this response is probably motivated by selfishness, I don't like it because I'm a bitter idealist.

On the authenticity bit- i really disagree with this idea that we're being narcissistic. I think that the right to judge is good, but we also need to know when this is applicable. For example, the fact that Hulk presumes that we're just internet crybabies, whining about things that we don't care about is too much of an extent of this power. You said that we should be able to think these things but not to say them. If that's true, then it applies to judging as well especially when you have no ability to understand my thoughts and emotions toward this matter. The fact that you asked is a little bit better than being presumptuous, but those questions are quite personal, and it's not my place to have to answer them... just like it's not your place to presume my emotions or reactions. That's not being a narcissist, it's being someone who doesn't believe that others determine their feelings. 

 

This whole idea of selfishness is also something I disagree with. 

 

a. You make an argument about Boston deaths vs. millions of deaths everyday in other countries. But if you're right about us being selfish, then this is logical. People are inherently self-interested, so this means that naturally most people can relate to the boston deaths more. These are people in the same country, and probably under the same societal circumstances. Lots of people share this way of life. So when we've become conditioned to it, we are shocked when people just like us can die, just like that. Those people in the marathon/watching could have been you or me, so it's natural to get more worked up. This is a mental attack as well as a physical one. 

 

b. All we said was that it's terrible. Within a utilitarian calculus, it's probably true that the deaths in, say, Africa probably outweigh. But we never said that this is more important. It's just more relevant. 

 

c. Once again, with representations of tragedy, it's impossible to take everything into account. We can't simply talk about every instance of violence.

 

d. Relevance- if a bombing killed 10 people in Congo, and someone talked about it on the internet, would they be inherently wasting their time of they didn't talk about the structural violence that kills millions of people every year in America? That's not how local discourse works.

 

And you talk about social posturing- 

 

a. no way to prove whether or not that's what we're participating in

 

b. It's better than an ethic of disregard. Social posturing is undoubtedly a bad way to go, but the impact to not caring whatsoever is larger than the impact to people pretending to care to elevate social standing. 

 

Finally, i do agree that it's probably not a good thing to cry every time there's a minor tragedy, but we need to take everything into consideration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, this thread has devolved into vacuousness, but you know what? Everyone has shown remarkable restraint in not asking how this will affect terrorism impact brinks. So, maybe there is hope for this community after all.

 

Now, back to whatever ridiculous debate you were having about nihilism.

Edited by MrMarantz
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The website ate most of my rebuttal post, and I don't care enough to try again right now. 

Hate when that happens.

 

Curse you, backspace key, curse you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what Hulk was talking about is that we can change (though we collectively as citizens/sheeple and taxpayers are supporting) foreign policy to condemn these 'millions of deaths'. Most Americans do not have any idea where on the map these places are that our foreign policy affects (let alone Boston) - which they support aggressively. There is a common belief among the uneducated that we are helping these people, whom do not have the capacity to contemplate western culture or democracy. Even worse, most believe that these 'animals', third worlders, should kill themselves. This dehumanization of the third world, and valuing people more based on their nationality, skin color, or the god that they pray to is obviously caused by capitalism, denial of a common ancestor and evolution, and the belief that the magic god fairy is high overhead.

 

A quote from Jacob Bronowski comes to mind:

It's said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That's false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

 

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

 

I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard, I owe it as a human being to the many members of my family who died here, to stand here as a survivor and a witness. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people.

I think it is ridiculous that we should be wasting our time on an issue that is inevitable, death. The people who died in the terrorist (or rather lonely, anti-social, on acne/depression medication, probably was raised by a single mother, spent too much time playing video games - completely not the result of poor gun control, most likely a homosexual, and despite what some conspiracy theories claim, totally not affiliated with any Islamlist organization, white kid) attack were going to die anyways, it might as well happened now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR - I'm a bitter and cynical idealist.

No kidding.

 

I disagree that any of you care very much about this violence. I don't think that any of you lost loved ones or have cried over this event, that's blatantly false. It's exactly the kind of social posturing that makes me feel a little bit disgusted. I understand that social posturing is somewhat inevitable, so I don't hate when people do it anymore, but I still dislike it very much.

 

I don't even think that this event is even worth crying over - if we cried every time that a few dozen people got killed, we would never stop. Millions have died, billions will too, so why should we devote our attention to this one incident? Humans have limited emotional resources as well as tangible ones, so instead of focusing on one minor tragedy and making a big show and national event out of it we should instead focus our efforts and our feelings on the things that really do matter. It might feel nice to act as though we're the kind of people who cry every time a bomb goes off, but that just isn't possible, and acting that way is only going to make us think of ourselves as good people, it's not actually going to solve anything. In that sense, mourning minor "catastrophes" is often selfish, because its main purpose is to promote one's status and to promote one's self image, instead of to stop actual catastrophes from happening.

This is exceptionally presumptuous. Like, impressively so. You assume we didn't cry or care or whatever and that's just dicking around man. You didn't cry, you didn't feel anything but numbness, sure okay that's your coping mechanism and that's fine, but for you to presume everyone responds to tragedy that way - and that if they don't respond your way that they lied (who does that on the internet anyway amirite) - is beyond fucked up. No I didn't cry immediately after hearing about it, in fact I was pretty nonchalant because I was at school focused on other shit, but when I got home and browsed the conversations on r/boston and read and saw images and video in r/MorbidReality, you bet I cried. That shit was awful and those are real people that you see in pain and grief. That's fucking powerful. I don't care that you don't respond the same way, but don't presume that others didn't. It's a tragedy; just because I didn't respond the same way in this instance like you did, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

But grief (mine, others') isn't some normative statement, prescribing that we cry at all pain & tragedy ever... it was at the "right time" to trigger such a reaction or whatever I guess, but I'm not saying we should all cry at all people's pain. And I don't think your focus on "solving issues" or whatever is important either. I'd rather people show empathy, or at least feel it (not that you don't, you say you do and I believe it), rather than mill about. No I haven't donated blood etc. (I don't think I'm actually allowed to from the literature I received ~a year ago) but have you? And even if you haven't, it's not like that's necessary... No kid in Texas (or wherever you live) has the ability to "solve for" this bombing... I learned about it when you did. It's the pot calling the kettle black - or worse, not doing anything at all - when you make that argument.

 

But if you want to talk about not showing such empathy for every other atrocity... That's maybe where the political aspect of life and debate enter. Obviously I can't solve the problems in the world that cause death and pain - but education (largely through, whoa, policy & ld debate) and learning about policy-making (cross-apply every "policy making education is good" card you've heard here) is probably more "solvent" than getting worked up about it. I guess I could apologize that I express sympathies for my fellow Americans - even if I'm otherwise not one to appeal to national identity and whatnot - but people deal with different emotionally harmful things in different ways. Maybe it's not terrible that we cry for members of our national community but prepare ourselves with argument and persuasion toward international issues. As Americans we're already largely abstracted from those other issues brought up (Congo war, occupation of Tibet, Palestine etc.) and probably can't do much toward them - don't pretend like that's my fault or whatever.

 

Finally, your cold attitude toward death and catastrophe is probably more indicative of problems than my expressed empathy... It's interesting that you're both knowledgeable of terrible things and also numb to them. I don't know if that's bad. Devaluing our performed responses to bad stuff is probably bad though. I don't know enough about this to offer an argument, just an observation.

 

Saying all this, it's not like I hold anything against you or discount your input to this site or anything. It's all cool; peace and love and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Americans we're already largely abstracted from those other issues brought up (Congo war, occupation of Tibet, Palestine etc.) and probably can't do much toward them - don't pretend like that's my fault or whatever.

What bothers me is that Americans are more concerned over some celebrities sex life, the supernatural or how much fatter they can get, rather than world issues (like global warming, which a lot of Americans deny even though they are the main cause of it), humanism or science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bothers me is that Americans are more concerned over some celebrities sex life, the supernatural or how much fatter they can get, rather than world issues (like global warming, which a lot of Americans deny even though they are the main cause of it), humanism or science.

True. That's largely not true of say policy debaters and those more socially & politically conscious. I think we can all make our mark by keeping doing what we doing but also making things (politics, debate, education, etc) more palatable for those that don't care. Part of that might include allowing problematic forms of politics to foster but that's probably better than an apathetic public. Maybe not. I'd rather have conservatives to argue with than dumb kids that don't care though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Hulk's objection is that certain types of lives are intensely grieved (20 dead children in Newtown, 3 dead in Boston) but other types of lives are not grieved (20 dead children in urban Chicago shot by cops; 30 dead at an Afghani wedding because a predator drone missed.

 

It's not so much a question of authenticity (do you really feel sad for these people?) as it is selectiveness (why do you authentically feel for only a select group of people). 

 

Perhaps this restatement could put the conversation back on topic?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is ridiculous that we should be wasting our time on an issue that is inevitable, death. The people who died in the terrorist (or rather lonely, anti-social, on acne/depression medication, probably was raised by a single mother, spent too much time playing video games - completely not the result of poor gun control, most likely a homosexual, and despite what some conspiracy theories claim, totally not affiliated with any Islamlist organization, white kid) attack were going to die anyways, it might as well happened now.

Trying to avoid death is stupid, but trying to prolong life isn't. You're probably abstracting too much.

 

This is exceptionally presumptuous. Like, impressively so. You assume we didn't cry or care or whatever and that's just dicking around man. You didn't cry, you didn't feel anything but numbness, sure okay that's your coping mechanism and that's fine, but for you to presume everyone responds to tragedy that way - and that if they don't respond your way that they lied (who does that on the internet anyway amirite) - is beyond fucked up. No I didn't cry immediately after hearing about it, in fact I was pretty nonchalant because I was at school focused on other shit, but when I got home and browsed the conversations on r/boston and read and saw images and video in r/MorbidReality, you bet I cried. That shit was awful and those are real people that you see in pain and grief. That's fucking powerful. I don't care that you don't respond the same way, but don't presume that others didn't. It's a tragedy; just because I didn't respond the same way in this instance like you did, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You're so focused on whether or not I have some abstract right to make judgments like I did that you're ignoring the more important question of whether or not my judgments were correct. I don't think you can legitimately claim that I'm being presumptuous unless I'm wrong and you produce an argument as to why I don't have the right to try to assess other people's behavior. The burden of proof there would be on you.

 

I believe that you actually cried. I have two things to say in response.

 

First, it's important to think about why you ended up crying. From your description, it sounds to me like it was because you intentionally chose to seek out the tragedy. It's possible that you went there to feed your sense of grief, that's certainly the sense that I'm getting from your posts here. I don't think that's something I should be apathetic towards.

 

Second, I think you're probably an exception. Most people don't cry or feel sincere grief at the deaths of strangers. Again, please don't focus on whether or not I have the "right" to try to make that assessment. Instead, try to make your own assessment, and honestly ask yourself whether you think most of the country is legitimately torn up about the deaths of just a few people. I think that if you do so you'll agree. Our nation always pretends to be shaken up, but it always goes back to normal afterwards.

 

Then, consider the other half of my argument. If we're a country where we go into legitimate grief at the deaths of only a few people in Boston, then there is something deeply wrong with us anyway. Why? Because we don't express any similar sort of grief when other, more important tragedies occur. I'm not going to side completely with the Hulk and say that it's nationalism or racism that would make us do that, but I think it's probably something both similar and selfish.

 

 But grief (mine, others') isn't some normative statement, prescribing that we cry at all pain & tragedy ever... it was at the "right time" to trigger such a reaction or whatever I guess, but I'm not saying we should all cry at all people's pain. And I don't think your focus on "solving issues" or whatever is important either. I'd rather people show empathy, or at least feel it (not that you don't, you say you do and I believe it), rather than mill about. No I haven't donated blood etc. (I don't think I'm actually allowed to from the literature I received ~a year ago) but have you? And even if you haven't, it's not like that's necessary... No kid in Texas (or wherever you live) has the ability to "solve for" this bombing... I learned about it when you did. It's the pot calling the kettle black - or worse, not doing anything at all - when you make that argument.

 

I understand that emotions aren't directly subject to cognitive judgments, that's why I have such a hard time myself with a lot of these things. But I still think it's worth having an ideal form of behavior that we try to live up to, because our current culture seems to encourage emotional overreactions rather than discourage them. Once we feel grief, I agree there's nothing to do but feel it, but I think that trying to create conditions where we only feel grief in situations that we think it's appropriate is a good idea regardless.

 

I don't want people to not show empathy. I want them to show empathy when it really matters, not just when the media tells them to.

 

The website ate the rest of my post again, but I had enough content left that I decided to put this up anyway. Formatting has been hell since the downtime, at least for me. I'm going to bed.

 

 

It's not so much a question of authenticity (do you really feel sad for these people?) as it is selectiveness (why do you authentically feel for only a select group of people). 

I feel like they're related, in that if one isn't true then the other is. Either Americans are arbitrarily privileging certain lives or they don't really care about any of them, roughly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think that a lot of the logic here is right. However, with that said, I think that if you keep on thinking this way, you become too "numb" to actually do anything about it. Like, hey look, here are all these disabled people whose voices can't be heard, but who cares, there is all this other suffering to think and be "numb" about.

 

 

I think it's real, I think that people are just inherently more affected by things they can see easily and are judged to be closer to them.

Human Nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I think that it's pretty messed up, but still human nature, so we need to try to get over it.

The main difference between my point and yours is that you seem to think we shouldn't criticize what's natural, while I sort of think we should. We should acknowledge the limits of our criticism and not hate those who act in ways that are natural to them, which is somewhere I think we agree. But at the same time, we shouldn't just allow the worse aspects of human nature to go unchecked, which is somewhere we might disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said you shouldn't care, I'm saying you DO NOT care. You pretending to care is just a facade for the sake of your own gratification. If you and others really cared, really felt empathy for victims, we would acknowledge this happens every single day.



A perfect example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/world/middleeast/rockets-fired-from-egyptian-sinai-land-in-israel.html?_r=0

 

I don't see anyone in the world mentioning this... why? Because you don't care. If anyone gave a fuck, it would be on this website. It would be spammed all over my facebook news feed, and it would be interrupting the broadcast for some shitty baseball games. 

But it isn't, because you don't care. So why all of a sudden do you care about this one particular bombing? Because it effected rich white folk, much like yourself? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually disturbing me how the only examples you are discussing are from Israel (or the middle east), this entire thread, despite me repeatedly discussing other things.

 

 Because it effected rich white folk, much like yourself? 

See above, where I said, that people (humans) are inherently affected more by things deemed closer to them... 

You still haven't responded to the fact that it is literally impossible to mention all violence (or all bombing take you pick)... and why did you restrict yourself to only bombings? Read back in the thread... we pretty much came up with a bunch of responses you've ignored, and then moved on... We were even starting to find common ground, then you just jump back in and antagonize things again.

 

Edit: also, bad example to prove your point: " Two rockets fired from the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula struck the southern Israeli resort of Eilat on Wednesday, causing no damage or injuries"

 

Edit: Also, hate to be a grammar nazi, but it's affected (not effected)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


 

See above, where I said, that people (humans) are inherently affected more by things deemed closer to them... 

No shit, that's what I've been saying this entire fucking time. I'm glad you're almost on the same page finally. 

"The only reason any of you talk about it is nationalism. You only give a fuck inasmuch as those people could have been you or your loved ones." 

 

 

You still haven't responded to the fact that it is literally impossible to mention all violence (or all bombing take you pick)...

For the last fucking time, my point has never been to identify with all violence, that's fucking stupid. (I'm sure you can relate)

 

I will say this as simply as I can. This is where I draw the line, a step short of a hand puppet show for demonstration.

 

Bombings happen every day

No one gives a fuck

This bombing happens

People give a fuck?

 

Somethings clearly broken and very evidently "off" here. 

 

 

 

and why did you restrict yourself to only bombings?

Is this, like, seriously a real fucking question? You've got to be the best troll on this website. 

 

 


 

Edit: also, bad example to prove your point: " Two rockets fired from the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula struck the southern Israeli resort of Eilat on Wednesday, causing no damage or injuries"

The casualties are irrelevant for two reasons:

1. I was showing this as an example of the frequency of attacks. Coincidentally, one happened HOURS after my original post. Well what do you know, these things do happen every day.

 

2. Do you have any idea how much fucking madness would ensue if a rocket was shot into the US? I mean, seriously, do you have ANY FUCKING IDEA OF THE FUCKFEST THAT WOULD BE UNLEASHED?

 

 


Edit: Also, hate to be a grammar nazi, but it's affected (not effected)

Teach me proper grammar and I will teach you what a clitoris is. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said you shouldn't care, I'm saying you DO NOT care. You pretending to care is just a facade for the sake of your own gratification. If you and others really cared, really felt empathy for victims, we would acknowledge this happens every single day.

Yeah and I'm saying that you're wrong, because I do, and I'm sure Miro and Bannister do too. Don't stand on some high horse and denounce others that they "don't really care" because they show remorse when people die. You keep skirting the question of "is it possible to blow up everyone's news feed every time someone dies?" because you don't have an answer, and it kills your position. But if you keep dressing it up in asshole language like

 

and I will teach you what a clitoris is. 

then of course you won't care that you don't make sense. Of course it doesn't matter that you talk in circles as long as you think some kid on the web is more worried with grammar than "getting head" or whatever the fuck you're getting at here.

 

But more on that not making sense bit. Okay, let's pretend we don't care when others die (not true but hey you won't believe me no matter what). Now a bombing happens in my nation. Now I express empathy for those affected... now you criticize me for not doing it each other time. But you don't have a reason why it's possible to do so? And you don't have an alternative other than "fuck you" from what I can glean. So... what? Just get mad at each other? But of course you don't reflexively criticize yourself... You're the perfect one. (Chaos: this is what I was getting at about jurisdiction). You're in a position of moral superiority, and you're not wrong in the way you interact with violence and mourning...you're not the white&rich one (neither am I but that doesn't particularly matter to you does it), because you have a better alternative; you're just not sharing I guess. Enjoy it.

 

Unless your proposition is just say "well it happens every day" and sit happily about it... and that's not positive either, that's just complicity without even an outward sign of grief. That's flicking through Morbid Reality and saying "meh" at each photograph, and going back to your life. Certainly crying and feeling better about ourselves is no better but that's not what anyone's advocating. 

 

The "why bombings only?" question is relevant and Miro's not trolling, and you know that. You yourself are privileging some forms of violence, while either ignoring others or mitigating them (patriarchal violence comes to mind, given your heteronormative rage-insult quoted above).

 

 

 

2. Do you have any idea how much fucking madness would ensue if a rocket was shot into the US? I mean, seriously, do you have ANY FUCKING IDEA OF THE FUCKFEST THAT WOULD BE UNLEASHED?

Is this even responsive? He's pointing out that your example (ostensibly one of civilians dying) wasn't really an example of that at all and you blather about Americans being proud and not tolerating any retaliation... which is probably something that most nations should be able to do. I'd like if my (also ostensibly) autonomous nation was able to defend itself whether I'm American or not, and I'm sure the citizens of (insert every nation here) would say the same.

 

and chill the hell out, I thought others were being presumptuous but damn you ooze "holier than thou" at every sentence.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quotes on this site are going insane and changing with every post D:

Xlii, don't even think about the Mom's Spaghetti shit here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...