Mock

*deep breath*

Ok, so this has been playing on my mind for the past few days to the point where I have to spit it out. Feel free to flame away; I don't mind...and to be honest it really wouldn't affect me even if my intention was just to do a little trolling and stir the pot. Rest assured its far from it.

A few things in preamble;

I have lost both my parents. I lost a wife of 20 years. But I have never lost a child, and I hope that I never have to deal with it. I can't even begin to imagine the pain and anguish.

I know this subject is very fresh in everyone's minds, but that's also why it's been bugging the hell out of me.


Alright, get to it crash...

For the past days, I'm sure your news on the top side of the world has been totally dominated by the mass shooting in Connecticut. It has dominated the news down here for just as long, and we are somewhat removed from it. I look at social media pages filled with tributes, memorials, people struggling to deal with the event. So many people filled with sadness. So many people angry.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to take anything away from what happened; people deserve to be grieving, to be devastated and shocked and angry and whatever pertinent other descriptor you would care to throw in there, and not only if your directly linked, I know plenty of people have been genuinely affected indirectly. This is not about taking anything away from anyone. Those directly involved and indirectly.

My question, and the thing that's been playing on my mind is, why do we not have the same reaction to other attrocities that happen in the world every day ?

Today 20+ kids were stolen from there family in Somalia. Some of them were introduced to highly addictive drugs to ensure their loyalty. Others' parents were slaughtered trying to hold on to their most precious possession. In Rwanda not so long ago, churches were burnt with hundreds of women and children inside. Those that fled were clubbed to death with blunt weapons... I could go on, but Mock is a reasonably learned and well informed bunch of people; I'm sure you're all aware of as many more examples as I am.

So what's the difference here? Is it because its somewhere else? NIMBY? Do we dismiss it because we think they're inferior races? I say we because I'm not exactly out there donating time, money or resources to make a change either. If we make an informed choice to only help our own, is that the highest form of racism and do we justify it in our minds because nobody holds us accountable? Or are we really just claiming selective ignorance?

I do think that our country is so involved in this tragedy because it's so close to home. It could have been any town. It could have been my town. While the instances that you cited are equally disturbing, most people don't even know about them and thus are not affected. I am not saying that is right. It's just how it is. People tend to not get involved unless it affects them more directly.

Particularly here in Australia, we are so laid back, it's almost as if we don't care what is going on in the rest of the world. We have the good life. That seems to be the attitude here sometimes. Morning television here is more focused on the Victoria's secret latest fashion show than Syria and the daily atrocities that are taking place there. It was a brutal slaughter of innocent children that were killed by the knife some of them infants. I think each incident is horrific and evil, no matter the location or situation that brings about these events.

I don't know why the media chooses to focus on particular events and whether this is studied and explained at an academic level. There must be a reason why we are shown such events in graphic detail and other incidents are all but ignored. Maybe there might be politics and profits before people.

The answer, imho is two prong:
First, as stated in the OP, it more closely involves you. 'There but by the grace of God...' any of those children feel like it could have been your loved own murdered.
“Zuckerberg Said, ‘A Squirrel Dying In Your Front Yard May Be More Relevant To Your Interests Right Now Than People Dying In Africa’”
What directly involves you will trump those tragedies that don't.

Secondly, it is a proactive method for us to deal with pain. If we felt all pain throughout the world you would be less likely to survive, let alone cope with the pain that arises within your own life- your own world of influence.

Stupid iPhone double post feature....again

(12-19-2012, 08:49 AM)OnBendedKnee Wrote: [ -> ]“Zuckerberg Said, ‘A Squirrel Dying In Your Front Yard May Be More Relevant To Your Interests Right Now Than People Dying In Africa’”
What directly involves you will trump those tragedies that don't.

But that's my point, OBK. Somebody that lives in California (almost another country away in geographic terms), that is not related or befriended to the victims must surely only be affected via patriotism or the story that the media have told?

People in my country that are also not related or befriended to the victims are even further removed. Is it people are just happy to jump in the press' juggernaut bandwagon?

^

When it happens in America we all feel like it happened to one of us personally. That's a stretch, but closer to truth than not.

911 is another example.
I knew no one personally who died in the attacks yet I can tell you exactly where I was and what I was doing when I first heard of them.

I couldn't even begin to tell you where I was when the first reports of victims being killed with burning tires around their midsections in Africa was broadcast.

(Couple all of this with those who really are not emotionally involved yet make claim to be so as to continue to be part of the tribe- to continue the meme.)

(12-19-2012, 07:29 AM)crash Wrote: [ -> ]My question, and the thing that's been playing on my mind is, why do we not have the same reaction to other attrocities that happen in the world every day ?

I basically said the same thing in this thread except it was more in a trollish way. The dog comment was not very nice now that I look back at it.

http://mockforums.net/thread-186.html

What happened in Rwanda affected me very much, it just took a movie (Hotel Rwanda) to make me understand what was really happening there.

In this particular case, I think I'd be almost as affected if this identical thing had happened in England or Australia.

It's probably the worst thing I've really tried to comprehend. To me, more so than ⁹⁄₁₁ and terrorists.

6 and 7 year olds, and their caregivers/teachers, being senselessly and mercilessly slaughtered by someone I'd consider to be a 'throw away' member of society. This person did not and would not have ever offered 1 contribution to society, but he had the power to destroy 26 lives and families.

And I think what really brings out feelings in people, regardless of where in the world they are, is whether or not they're a parent. Particularly if they still have young children.

I also know there have been similar events around the globe. The school incident in Russia, Scotland I believe had an incident in the '90's, etc.

I don't know Crash. When it's little kids who are intentionally slaughtered (especially in a so-called civilized society), the outrage, IMO, should be as high as possible.

When something this bad happens day after day after day in some countries it becomes the norm. When the same thing happens here it is not. Are the people in Somalia caring whats happening here? Highly unlikely.

I think, for the general public as a whole, it’s probably more NIMBY and selective ignorance (or apathy, in some cases) than it is racism. For example, the level of emotionalism felt by many here in the US regarding the Connecticut killings would be much lesser if the same exact scenario had gone down in Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand, likewise if it had happened in Mexico, Somalia, or China.

When a tragedy strikes closer to home (regionally and in terms of lifestyle/culture), people in general feel more connected and therefore emotionally affected, imo.

For me, the anger and sadness of an elementary school basically being turned into a slaughterhouse quickly gets overridden by a desire to understand how/why and what can be done to minimize chances of it happening again. Others with no direct connection to the incident are more emotionally impacted for a longer period of time and just need to grieve.

I guess the level of emotional impact amongst those affected probably varies a lot according to individual priorities, emotional capacity, selective ignorance (which is sometimes a healthy coping mechanism, imo), etc…

On a macro scale, it’s often difficult for me to really understand why the US intervenes in attempt to curb atrocities in some countries and not in others; same with international media coverage. Collective selective ignorance? Could be, in some cases. Could also be that it's best sometimes to do nothing, even when awareness is high, imo. Lots of social and political variables involved…

I wonder if Americans would stop mass killing if the national news didn't pick it up and people didn't post it on their Facebook account. Because then they wouldn't be infamous. Maybe the responsibility is a shared one.

I heard somebody say, "I feel as bad as those parents." No, you don't. You just don't. You cling to tragedy to get attention from other people's dead kids.

That's fucked up.

There were mass killings in America long before there was a national media and way before Facebook.
A few things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:
Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.
In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.

OBK, your post above jumps back and forth between mass killings and mass shootings.

^
You're correct. Although there is a fine distinction, within the parameters of this thread- the case for a general argument, I believe my points are valid and within the acceptable tolerance for error.

You talk funny.