Breaking News: Dozens killed by car and suicide bombs in UK cities

[Teto 2609]

More than 70 people have been killed and many others injured in a series of bomb attacks across the UK.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

Why are all of these horrible things happening so close to each other? ):

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

Oh, whew. It's in Iraq, not the real world.

[Ammonsa 308]

It's interesting. 

 

I mean, it's interesting what this thread actually did for me. LL made the joke, but it probably hits closer to home than most are comfortable with. 

 

I saw this thread and started worrying and thought it was awful and was wondering how it could happen, and then I clicked the link and saw it wasn't in the UK and then I couldn't help it, I did have a feeling of relief, thinking briefly that it's better happening in Iraq than the UK. And then I felt bad for thinking this, and now I'm thinking about those preconcieved notions you subconsciously have. Without even realising it, I put the value of human life of people in the UK as more so than in Iraq, subconsciously. But now I have realised it, so it's able to be dealt with.

 

This is a good thread.

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

Yeah, people who look and think like you are easier to relate with. Even if that relation you're feeling is tiny.

For example, the Boston bombing stuff received (what I perceived as) an insane amount of media attention. I called it fear-mongering and stuff, yeah, but also there could be a less pathetic reason for all of the coverage. I think lots of news companies are focused in that area. So their response is going to be different than if it happened in the Midwest, for example. It just comes down to how close to home it feels (even if how we describe "close to home" is in the small details).

I agree that this is a good and interesting thread.

[Teto 2609]

Ta for people getting the point <:

But yeah hearing about it happening somewhere you thought safe makes you worried for your own safety. But we already know Iraq isn't a safe place, so stuff happening there doesn't worry us so much, because we live in more peaceful countries. Its the fear that we're not safe that makes you worry more if it's an attack in the UK. Probably not even a legitimate care for the people involved, but rather just a fear for your own security is what you're responding to sometimes with stories like these. For me at least, I admit.

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

Right.

You can't actually be concerned sincerely about something unless/until you have something at stake. Forced empathy, and being judged for not having illegitimate empathy, has always really bothered me. This is in the same vein as my rambling in the Boston thread

Barely related: I really strongly disagree with policies to promote forced empathy. A calculated appeal to my "heart" or emotions to achieve some outcome has always bothered me. I would feel as if I'm being advertised to and being manipulated. For example, I always felt a strong rejection of moments of silence, or those commercials in which sad music plays and starving Africans or animals are shown, black history month, any kind of "awareness movement", or anything having to do with Nancy Grace.

Any feelings about empathy and the possible consequences of those feelings should feel "legitimate" to me (whatever that means). It's insulting to me, as if someone is farming me for my empathy and the money that is surely to come of it. I'm not saying that there aren't sometimes good consequences for the manipulation, but I think an organic empathy is going to accomplish more. And it'll be more lasting, IMO. I think that all of these controlled empathy things are alienating people. In my opinion, creating hordes of jaded people is worse than having sparse, yet legitimate, feelings of empathy.

Edited 22 May 2013 by ∟ ∟ (see edit history)

[Padraig! 103]

I get the point but it's very important not to take these things out of context. The reason the boston bombings were so hyped up by the media is because in america, a bombing is a BIG deal, especially post 9/11. America has a serious culture of fear of terrorism that exists nowhere else in the world. In Iraq, this is nothing unusual. The country is war torn, has two muslim factions that despise each other, tensions are high. A car bomb in the west is a tragedy, but a car bomb in the middle east is a statistic. You see it in the news, think "oh thats sad" and scroll on.

 

 

 

Barely related: I really strongly disagree with policies to promote forced empathy. A calculated appeal to my "heart" or emotions to achieve some outcome has always bothered me. I would feel as if I'm being advertised to and being manipulated. For example, I always felt a strong rejection of moments of silence, or those commercials in which sad music plays and starving Africans or animals are shown, black history month, any kind of "awareness movement", or anything having to do with Nancy Grace.

Any feelings about empathy and the possible consequences of those feelings should feel "legitimate" to me (whatever that means). It's insulting to me, as if someone is farming me for my empathy and the money that is surely to come of it. I'm not saying that there aren't sometimes good consequences for the manipulation, but I think an organic empathy is going to accomplish more. And it'll be more lasting, IMO. I think that all of these controlled empathy things are alienating people. In my opinion, creating hordes of jaded people is worse than having sparse, yet legitimate, feelings of empathy.

This feels overly cynical to me.

 

Besides, what difference is there between forced empathy and genuine empathy? Why not exploit empathy if it can contribute to good? The sad african children and the piano music trying to get you to donate to charity is definitely trying to play up a trope, but there REALLY are african children dying. They're not trying to get your money to line their pockets, they're trying to get your money to (albeit in a very unintelligent fashion) try and end poverty in africa.

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

1.You see it in the news, think "oh thats sad" and scroll on.

 

 

2. This feels overly cynical to me.

 

 

3. Besides, what difference is there between forced empathy and genuine empathy? Why not exploit empathy if it can contribute to good? The sad african children and the piano music trying to get you to donate to charity is definitely trying to play up a trope, but there REALLY are african children dying. They're not trying to get your money to line their pockets, they're trying to get your money to (albeit in a very unintelligent fashion) try and end poverty in africa.

 

I don't know how to break up quotes now that quotes have changed, so I numbered the things of yours that I'll reply to. Edit, I could have just copied the whole thing, and pasted it three times, but it wasn't showing up in this text box, so I didn't do it. This works, though.

 

1. If is someone's response to say "oh that's sad", are they wrong? Are you implying that they should have a response that suits your opinion of the severity of the tragedy? People react in the way that reflects their background and life. If a person has somehow never heard of a murder before and they discover a car bombing has occurred and they are especially moved by the concept, then that's fine. If a person is from a violent background and says "oh that's sad" then that's fine, too. A car bombing is a big deal in America because the media says it's a big deal. Is gun violence a "big deal" in America? Intelligence agencies and factual information will tell you that no, gun crimes are not a "big deal". The media will wring it for every tear that it's worth and make it the biggest deal that ever happened.

 

 

2. Cynical how? It's just my opinion. It's my observation and interpretation that others' motives are shrewdly and manipulatively tugging at my heartstrings. If I am conscious of it, or I should say, if they do a bad job of concealing it, then I am going to reject their manipulation and try to call it out. Everything that ever existed is just someone's will/plan being exerted on others. I am not claiming that the methods are evil or that they should be stopped or anything. I am not endorsing being jaded or unfeeling or anything. If I am affected by something, I would want it to be because I had personal stake in it and because I felt it directly, not because I am watching a slideshow of images of people crying with somber music playing on what is supposed to be a news program. There are some things that are so shocking that they could affect me indirectly, through other sources, without me having to watch it unfold before my eyes. I'm not claiming that the difference between "legitimate empathy" and "illegitimate empathy" have anything to do with the medium through which I am perceiving the info. It was just an example. "Legitimate" and "illegitimate" are two very subjective ends of some kind of spectrum that only exists in my head.

 

 

3. There isn't a difference between the two. But like I said, if I can obviously notice that I my emotions are being targeted in order to achieve a response, then I probably will be less likely to play along (I tell myself). You asked "why not exploit empathy if it can contribute to good?" I avoided saying "good" and instead said that "I think an organic empathy is going to accomplish more. And it'll be more lasting, IMO". There's not a "good" only a "good for me/us/our cause". Spreading a story that you personally found inspiring in hopes that it will inspire others is one thing, but to use advertisement tactics to appeal to masses of people for a desired outcome that is custom-made for your "cause", is different to me. It's not really very different, though. I probably just want to rebel from that so I can feel as if I am not a mindless drone for a little bit.

 

And in response to your last line: on the first and most basic level, before they can start on the poverty issue, they are trying to force you to agree with them and get you on their side. You win people over with smiles, friendship, gifts, heartwarming things, etc. and then you lay your agenda on them. You will not do well if you are "all business". If you are trying to appeal to people to get them on your side, you have to lay on the charm. Do you really think US presidential candidates like having Twitter accounts? It appeals to voters age whatever to whatever. puppy all, smash the state

Edited 22 May 2013 by ∟ ∟ (see edit history)