Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 12, 2018 20:03:14 GMT -5
So Virgil....if you disregard the posts that are only posted for stalking and name-calling purposes, it would appear that most people here would agree, at least in part, with your OP. It raises some interesting issues. It was a thought-provoking thread that didn't end up quite as badly as I figured it would. Weltz isn't stalking. She's just flogging a point while ignoring everyone else's. "Curious George" fallacy. George knocks over a planter, runs a car into a ditch, takes out electricity to half the city, and derails a subway car, all so he can help an old lady bake a pie. It's such a mighty fine pie, though, all is well. Pity it only lasts a few days.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 12, 2018 19:23:03 GMT -5
If I see a 6'3", 230 lb guy charging at me, and I have a gun, I'm probably going to blow him away even if he's wearing a tutu. Just on instinct.
I guess it's a good thing for him I don't carry a gun.
In fairness, Tall was never among the subscribers to "gentle giant" and "Hands up, don't shoot!"
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 12, 2018 9:09:18 GMT -5
Nnnnng. Mr. Razzetti is weaving back and forth through at least four distinct issues: 1) whether introspection for the purposes of self-improvement is necessary, 2) which "introspection" (and I use the term loosely) behaviours are productive vs. unproductive, 3) the schism between self-perception and others' perception of us, 4) what the goal(s) of introspection should be. The wisdom and advice (of the non-fortune-cookie variety) seems hit-or-miss. All excerpts ibid.: Self-doubt erodes confidence. And you start feeling sorry for yourself. Self-pity is an exaggerated sense of sorrow when you become a victim of your inner-critic. The quest for finding who you are can turn you upside down. Agreed. However, i) self-pity is a potential hazard of introspection, not an inherent consequence of it, ii) there are other routes to self-pity aside from introspection, and iii) introspection can just as easily lead away from self-pity; for example, when one considers the futility of self-pity, or gains perspective on the diminutive scale of one's troubles relative to one's blessings. Rehashing memories is like watching the same movie over and over. You know the storyline by hard, pretending a different ending is useless. Spinning a story will get you stuck without providing any insights. Assuming "rehashing memories" refers to "rehashing memories beyond where one is gaining new insights", agreed. I understand what he's driving at here. We've all witnessed somebody slowly killing themselves by clinging to a past mistake, a past wrong committed against them, a past trauma. I wouldn't call this "introspection", but in the sense that it's an internal mental process of reflection, it's not an egregious reach. Trying to find ‘the’ truth can blind us. You stop observing; no answer will ever be good enough. It’s better to be kind to yourself than to be right. Be compassionate with yourself. What seems right today might not work for you tomorrow. This statement and others smell of anomie and moral relativism. If he means to say, "Forgive yourself for past wrongs; commit to doing rights in the future": certainly. If he means "Let your moral standards lapse so you're no longer as distraught by immoral behaviour; there is no right and wrong," which is what I think he's saying: that dog don't hunt, monseigneur. Thinking about yourself isn’t necessarily correlated with knowing yourself. It can sometimes create the opposite effect: the more time you spend in introspective mode, the less self-aware you become. This much is true. But again: a potential hazard to be avoided, not sufficient reason to eschew introspection. Developing self-awareness is not a goal; it’s the purpose of your existence. Uh huh. The same as a cow. Perfectly self-aware according to every criterion you list. Moooooo. Ask for feedback. What are you good at? What makes you a difficult person? Why people like you? Why some people feel uncomfortable with you? Write your answers. Ask several people to answer the question. Compare notes. Learn from how other people see you. This much is good advice (bearing in mind not all feedback is created equal). It's... interesting, Artemis. My apologies for raining on your parade if you didn't intend we critique it. Who knows which of the four quadrants I actually fall in. A defensible assessment would require a great deal of thinking, reasoning, judging, and introspection, and according to Mr. Razzetti, that will probably just lead to anxiety and a negative self-image. Hence I choose to believe I fall in the "Aware" quadrant--clearly the best quadrant--and if you don't agree, you can take your thoughts, reasons, and judgments and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 12, 2018 7:30:29 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 11, 2018 22:01:42 GMT -5
While it's not so in this particular case, many feel that this sensationalism as it pertains to mass shootings might even encourage the next person to want his/her 15 minutes. If you take an already mentally ill person and add the entire media plastering the shooter's name all over the place, is it possible that the next ill person says to himself/herself, "If I do this, too, at least I'll finally get people to pay attention to me."? I think it's not only possible, but probable. Not only probable, but factual. At least as far as the written manifestos of some of these nutters, which I won't cite for obvious reasons. The greater risk is terrorism, where the principal goal is to inspire as much grief and terror as possible. Do you think if no one saw images of the burning towers on TV, the US would have just shrugged and ignored the fact that terrorists destroyed those buildings, without demanding revenge? No, but i) citizens mightn't have been as hasty to jump to conclusions, and mightn't have valued the lives of foreigners so little compared to the lives of Americans, and ii) voices urging restraint mightn't have had their arguments so readily shot down by shameless appeals to emotion. Not grief porn, that was political spin by the GOP to garner votes. Fair enough. I did stipulate "media" in the OP. But it's a similar beast. Seriously? Unless you're a minority parent of a small child who goes missing and the story is ignored while the beautiful blond white girl in the next town over is the subject of vigils and pray meetings and amber alerts, I doubt this EVER happens. "Seriously?" right back at you. Obviously our perceptions and experiences are a world apart. An unfortunate characteristic, and one we should try to rise above, but it isn't caused by grief porn - grief porn is a symptom of it. See billisonboard 's helpful remark. I'll add that macabre curiosity is both a cause and a symptom of grief porn. It feeds on itself, like any other vice or addiction. The media, meanwhile, lives and dies by whether it's serving what the public wants to eat. I'm sorry, how is my country potentially going to war none of my business? How is an increase in police shootings of (black) civilians none of my business? How is a change in abortion/reproductive rights/access to treatments none of my business? Am I supposed to focus on my individual bubble and just hope the big world outside it doesn't come crashing down? I agree that nonstop tragedy is a downer and somewhat sensationalizes tragedies, but should we really sanitize the news to remove all "sad" things? If so, isn't that just a different type of propaganda you're advocating for? There are ways of reporting tragedy without sensationalizing it. Some basic rules have already been mentioned: avoid hyperbolic language, avoid putting bodies on display, mitigate the amount of violence, gore, and carnage displayed, avoid speculation and superfluous analyses. Fix the problem, not the blame. For example, in the case in the OP: omit mention of the coroner office's error, or mention it briefly sans 20 additional minutes of hysteria and wondering out loud "What went wrong?" Neither does a lick of good. Cut with the "public reactions" to loaded questions. Leave the victims' families alone. Focus on the stories of resilience, perseverance, selfless sacrifice, and admirable conduct. Above all, keep any tragedy in proper perspective. We live in a world where war, disease, famine, natural disaster, etc. routinely wipe out hundreds of thousands, even millions of people in the proverbial blink of an eye. The most lethal things in our society are invariably the least sensational: heart disease, cancer, home and workplace accidents, drug and alcohol abuse. Almost by necessity, anything stirred up into a national phenomenon by the media is going to be blown out of proportion hundreds or thousands of times with respect to its relative impact. We willingly engage because we're curious, empathetic, vindictive, and highly social creatures. Human tragedy is fascinating. It's emotionally stimulating, and provides us with a sense of solidarity--neither of which is bad in and of itself. But in the vast majority of cases, mass public engagement is only realizable when we totally disregard the scale of a tragedy. The media (being the media) is in the business of blowing every tragedy, scandal, conflict, and complaint up to the biggest possible scale, emotionally investing as many people as they possibly can, which carries grave consequences. Our consumption and personal willingness to participate should reflect our awareness of this fact.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 11, 2018 8:12:17 GMT -5
It did in 2001 and 2003.
Couldn't speak a word against invading Iraq or Afghanistan. Here are the images of bodies being dragged from the rubble of the towers again, on a 24-hour loop.
The response to the Benghazi attack: grief porn. Years of it. Let's get the widow of one of the slain marines up on stage at the RNC and get her to cry for the cameras. Vote Trump! Can't speak against that. (The Democrats did it too, of course.)
Absolutely. Your beloved was just killed, nobody gives a damn, and lo the nation is sitting in sackcloth and ashes for the sake of somebody else's beloved. Even if you're in a rational state of mind--which isn't likely--it's hard not to feel resentment for the unfairness.
Often it manifests as resentment against different groups. Whites, blacks, Muslims, Christians, Americans, Mexicans, rich people, young people, or whoever is being lionized in the media while nobody bats an eyelash for your loss. Again, if you were in a rational and forgiving state of mind, you might reconsider whether the unfairness is truly the result of prejudice. You might reconsider whether begrudging other families their spotlight is moral and wise. But you're angry and suffering. Resentment is an extremely seductive trap to fall into, even years after the fact.
Convincing people that what is absolutely none of their business is their business. It deserves its own thread.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 11, 2018 7:21:22 GMT -5
I'd actually like to go to a gun show, purely out of curiosity. Canada seems to have an absurd number of gun shows, but I'm guessing all but a handful are pretty small. If I do it, I'll do it right: put on a beater and baseball cap, head to some major show in the US dripping with bravado and patriotism, and immerse myself in another world for a while. Nobody will suspect I'm a timid Canuck that knows jack snow leopard about firearms.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 11, 2018 7:04:29 GMT -5
Seems like you're the only one feeling resentment. Seems like you're the only one offended by this. Not every one of the pitfalls applies to every case of "grief porn". Nobody is exploiting this particular tragedy to ban hockey road trips, wage war on the trucking industry, or push other inane policies. It's also not giving glory and notoriety to terrorists, since it was accidental. Hence two of the biggest problems don't apply. Hopefully the media and public will butt out of whatever punishment is handed down to the truck driver. I also sincerely hope the Saskatchewan brass don't offer up somebody at the coroner's office as a public sacrifice for the misidentification. That's all we need in Canada: more trained medical professionals sitting on the dole, compliments of the media. Notwithstanding these and the pitfalls pertaining to the victims' families, this case is relatively benign. It stands out because of the media's sheer verve in stirring up as much grief and contention as possible, and because it's the first time I've ever seen health authorities officially tell reporters to sod off and stay away from victims' families.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 20:29:25 GMT -5
Well, that's just it! We're Canadian. We all rode the bus and we all sent our children on the bus. Playoff games, away games, hockey camps, etc. It could have been any one of us, and the grief would have been in surmountable. Virgil has no kids. I guess that's why he's being such a dick about this.I only know Virgil from what he posts to this board so take my thought FWIW. I don't think Virgil having children would fundamentally change his opinion on this. Not because I think he won't be a loving father but because I just don't think he's wired that way. He wouldn't be like the dad wiping tears from his own face while comforting his child on the way out of "The Fox and the Hound". He'd be like the mom looking at the rest of us in annoyance while snapping at her son "Oh for God's sake, stop crying. It's just a movie. What the Hell is wrong with People today?" Though without the profanity, of course. I depends on the plot. I've never seen the movie. I like the approach of one of the ministers in my church. When he watches a non-vetted movie with his kids, he gets them to watch with an eye for what messages the director is trying to communicate. Then they discuss it afterward: What is it that the director wants you to believe? What assumptions does he want you to make? In what direction is he trying to pull you? In what ways is he exploiting his omnipotence in crafting action and consequence to influence your perception of reality? Aside from video games, film is the most subversive, manipulative medium known to man. Kids need to be aware of what they're being fed. The younger, the better. I don't know if "The Fox and the Hound" has objectionable morals (it would greatly surprise me if it did). If not, and it's tragic, let the kid cry. I cry at movies--far more often than I'd like.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 20:12:47 GMT -5
The observable public fallout? Do you mean people crying and being sad? I and others have already enumerated many pitfalls. - hysteria leading to irrational public policy
- exploitation of tragedy leading to propaganda, division, resentment, and even war
- covetousness and resentment stirred in millions whose loved ones' deaths go unnoticed by society
- unwelcome additional pressure on many families who want nothing more than to grieve privately; additional scrutiny; additional obligations to offer thanks, answer questions, expose private details
- inadvertent promotion of voyeuristic attitudes; the sensationalization of grief
- engendering of unprofitable (often destructive) attitudes: strife, contention, outrage
One that hasn't been mentioned:
- withdrawal; realization by the few families who actually appreciate national attention that their fellow countrymen in "grief" have an attention span of 1-3 days, which I imagine packs a severe punch when the three days is up
Bad fruits. Even without getting into privacy-related issues, which are not unsubstantial.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 19:36:16 GMT -5
Stories of resilience and indomitable spirit we need more of. But they're not grief porn.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 19:33:41 GMT -5
I empathize dearly. I simply have a much narrower view than you do on where empathy supersedes other priorities. Looking at society losing its collective mind, I worry far more often whether I'm too empathetic. Am I simply an emasculated, weak-willed product of my generation, or do I stand for something? It's a double-edged sword. "Empathy is a big "needs improvement" area in my life. I have difficulty empathizing with people unless I know them well. I tend to think of the world as having too much empathy--too much tolerance, too much "cushioning the blow", too much back-patting and "it's not your fault"-ing--as part of my conservative character. This much I doubt will change. But I also lack empathy in situations where I reasonably acknowledge that empathy is appropriate. Part of it is because I'm a man, and part is because I'm an engineer, and part is because empathy doesn't come naturally. These are all just excuses, however, and if the bottom line is that I'm not empathetic enough, that's the bottom line." The above paragraph is from this post of yours, Virgil. I remembered it which is why I said empathy isn't one of your strong characteristics. I definitely don't think you have to worry about being "too empathetic". You're keeping me honest, and that's good, but this isn't a "situation where I reasonably acknowledge that empathy is appropriate"--referring to the media response, superficial public tributes, etc. I made the above statement in response to a criticism that I crack jokes too readily, which is something I've been working to improve on. It's not even an issue of "appropriateness" per se. It's an issue of healthy versus unhealthy. Socially profitable versus unprofitable. Bearing good fruits versus bearing bad fruits. The more I'm exposed to "grief porn" and its effects, the more I'm convinced it bears bad fruits. It's a drug with side effects that outweigh its medicinal value. It's more complicated than "appropriate" or "inappropriate".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 17:10:13 GMT -5
I empathize dearly. I simply have a much narrower view than you do on where empathy supersedes other priorities. Looking at society losing its collective mind, I worry far more often whether I'm too empathetic. Am I simply an emasculated, weak-willed product of my generation, or do I stand for something? It's a double-edged sword. The only one losing his mind is you. Nobody else started a nasty thread like this. No, you're not too empathetic....not by a long shot. Yeah, well... coming from anyone but you, that might tweak my conscience.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 17:08:40 GMT -5
Anyone who feels true empathic grief doesn't watch the news. They'd go insane in a week. Besides this, even if a victim's family becomes aware of it, how is the genuine empathic suffering of a complete stranger for the sake of their son's death conducive to the family's healing?Again I say: the intentions are mostly good, but with all factors considered, the bad outweighs the good. It gives me comfort to know people are thinking about me (or saying prayers for me) when life is hard. When my house blew down in a tornado and we had to check into a hotel, it was nice when the hotel clerk gave me a hug (I guess I looked like I needed one) and I didn't know her from Adam.
Not everyone likes expressions of sympathy. Some only want close friends and family to comfort them. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to experience grief. Your assumption that the victim's family wasn't helped by kind words from strangers is a false one - we don't know if they were helped or not. Only that you would not be helped by kind words from strangers.
Personally I don't understand why some people freak out and start screaming when they see a mouse. Mice don't bother me. I understand, however, that many other people don't like mice, and react very strongly to suddenly having one run across your foot in the garage. I'm not going to moan about how we need to go back to a time prior to Terminex when people stoically accepted mice in the house, however. It's ok if people have different emotional reactions to things than I do. I'm not arguing there can categorically be no good in "grief porn". Simply that the bad outweighs the good, especially when we consider the observable public fallout.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 17:01:20 GMT -5
Anyone who feels true empathic grief doesn't watch the news. They'd go insane in a week. Besides this, even if a victim's family becomes aware of it, how is the genuine empathic suffering of a complete stranger for the sake of their son's death conducive to the family's healing? Again I say: the intentions are mostly good, but with all factors considered, the bad outweighs the good. That might be your opinion, Virgil; however, as you've said, empathy isn't one of your strong characteristics. It's understandable you'd hold the opinion you hold. Not all will agree, though. I empathize dearly. I simply have a much narrower view than you do on where empathy supersedes other priorities. Looking at society losing its collective mind, I worry far more often whether I'm too empathetic. Am I simply an emasculated, weak-willed product of my generation, or do I stand for something? It's a double-edged sword.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 16:03:06 GMT -5
What else are they going to show you? The other 29 families telling them to sod off? Besides this, what else is a man going to say pinned in front of the camera? "You didn't know our son from Adam, you're not deeply grieved by his death--you can't possibly be, and your tributes are small solace."? He's a Canadian. He's going to say the courteous and appropriate thing. It doesn't mean total strangers putting out hockey sticks and knocking back an extra shot of bourbon "for the boys" is helping his emotional state. The few people who actually knew his son, were stakeholders in his life, and feel genuine grief at his passing: different story. One that has nothing to do with the media or 35 million people including you and me. For some people, empathic grief is, indeed, a reality. For those who aren't all that empathetic this is, often, unfathomable; however, it really does occur. Those who are highly empathetic will feel genuine grief at the loss of a child's life, or (for some) any life. These same empathetic people may also benefit from knowing others grieve with them because they understand the empathy behind that grief. Anyone who feels true empathic grief doesn't watch the news. They'd go insane in a week. Besides this, even if a victim's family becomes aware of it, how is the genuine empathic suffering of a complete stranger for the sake of their son's death conducive to the family's healing? Again I say: the intentions are mostly good, but with all factors considered, the bad outweighs the good.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 15:50:02 GMT -5
Prior to the 20th century, Virgil, people had very large families because someone was needed to help work the farm, and losing kids to the smallest things that we have vaccinations and antibiotics for was a fact of life. A family with 14 kids probably didn't have all of them surviving. Fortitude was a given, because you had to keep going and look after the other 11 kids who survived. Perhaps you'd like to go back to those good old days. I admire the stoicism, faith, forgiveness, and perseverance of "those good old days". This doesn't mean I welcome the many hardships that made it a necessity
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Ban It?
Apr 10, 2018 15:26:15 GMT -5
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 15:26:15 GMT -5
Not smart to put small chocking toys inside a kids candy. If you watch the video, they comment on the fact that kids actually have choked to death on the Kinder Surprise toy in the UK. Still, there's no great movement there (or in Canada, ISFAIW) to ban them. At least for now. Maybe next week the media giants will take a short position in Ferrero and we'll see a tot army mobilized to ban Kinder Surprise.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Ban It?
Apr 10, 2018 15:22:11 GMT -5
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 15:22:11 GMT -5
I just wait for a bunch of kids to tell me what to do. I can't ask right now because they are currently deciding the fate of Kim Jong Un. Not sure what you're talking about and pretty sure I don't want to know.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 15:20:38 GMT -5
That's my man Trump, Making America Great Again !! when was America great? i am not doubting that it once was- but when? The US jumped the shark when Pres. Nixon completely took you off the gold standard, if you're looking for a singular milestone. Generally speaking, however, it's been a long and gradual decline, and "greatness" is subjective.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 15:14:39 GMT -5
I was watching an interview with a dad who lost his son, and he said "Knowing that the whole country is grieving with us helps. It really helps." What else are they going to show you? The other 29 families telling them to sod off? Besides this, what else is a man going to say pinned in front of the camera? "You didn't know our son from Adam, you're not deeply grieved by his death--you can't possibly be, and your tributes are small solace."? He's a Canadian. He's going to say the courteous and appropriate thing. It doesn't mean total strangers putting out hockey sticks and knocking back an extra shot of bourbon "for the boys" is helping his emotional state. The few people who actually knew his son, were stakeholders in his life, and feel genuine grief at his passing: different story. One that has nothing to do with the media or 35 million people including you and me.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 14:56:19 GMT -5
I think this faith and fortitude is a figment of your imagination. I don't. The fact that it wasn't utterly without exception doesn't mean there wasn't a vast difference between then and today.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Ban It?
Apr 10, 2018 9:50:07 GMT -5
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 9:50:07 GMT -5
First, some food for thought: Why is 'Kinder Surprise' banned in the US? - A tale of corporate warfare and regulatory woe: why the 'Kinder Surprise' confection, beloved worldwide, is banned in the United States. Top doctor: Ban deadly blades from our kitchens - A UK's doctor's case for a ban on kitchen knives with pointed blades. The Assault Weapons Ban Is A Stupid Idea Pushed By Stupid People - The Federalist makes a case for why an assault weapons ban is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. (Apologies for the title.) Why Are Baby Walkers Banned In Canada? - HuffPo explores why baby walkers are banned in Canada. Game Changer: FDA Rules No Wooden Boards in Cheese Aging - The FDA bans wooden boards in the production of artisanal cheeses. This stirred a debate here on YMAM. (Note this particular ban was overturned shortly after it was introduced.) www.dumblaws.com/ - A compendium of so-called "dumb laws"--most of them bans--in the United States and internationally. Now that the mental juices are flowing: What process do you use to draw the line between what should be banned and what should not be banned? Are there any hard and fast rules? When should bans be decided by "experts" in your opinion? Have you ever rigorously contemplated a fair and consistent standard for bans, or do you go by gut feel on a case-by-case basis? Which of the specific bans in the OP do you support? Can you defend your support or opposition to various bans on a consistent basis, using consistent principles? Anyone willing to step into the arena to prove it in a peer-reviewed trial by fire?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 8:47:58 GMT -5
I disagree with this statement in general, not necessarily in regard to this particular incident. There are many who cannot (regardless of faith or lack of it) who feel they cannot go on after the loss of a loved one. Some fall into drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or take their own lives. I personally know a woman whose teenage daughter was killed in a car accident. She 2 months later she committed suicide. She could not move past the grief. Indeed. But even today, is this a typical response or an exceptional one? More importantly: as a society, do we want to move towards this as a response, or toward pre-20th-Century stoicism, where people were routinely confronted with the death of loved ones--including children--and yet persisted in great faith and fortitude? Most importantly of all: if we examine the total effects of (what I'm calling) "grief porn", does it ease suffering or does it worsen it? My argument is that, while it may be well-meaning, it clearly, objectively falls into the latter category. ETA: I've said so many times before, but I encourage everyone reading this to look up the West Nickel Mines school shooting and the response of the community there.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 8:17:58 GMT -5
I am not concerned at all about Mr. DeVega, so am puzzled why you so concern yourself with him? He is not the focus. What is the focus then? You want me to raise my right hand and swear Pres. Trump is a deeply flawed leader, perhaps the most so in your nation's history? I do solemnly swear... . Done. Are you swelling with contentment and satisfaction? I boldly presumed your focus included Mr. DeVega's analysis of the US' present situation. The only thing he does aside from opine about Pres. Trump's success as a cult of personality and failure as a moral human being is advocate a return to a "moderate" presidency, which he doesn't define. Hence knowing what he considers to be "moderate" is of particular importance to the discussion, would you not agree? He's not speaking to a rightist or centrist audience here. If he was, he'd be offering alternatives and specific examples of common ground. In looking at his past writings, I don't know what common ground anyone right of center could possibly share with the man. This is an us vs. them piece thinly disguised as an appeal for unity. No different than Mr. Greenfield's polemic except in its pretenses. If you don't think so, give us something more than "it is not simply an anti-Trump diatribe".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 7:43:47 GMT -5
Name any blade attack perpetrated by a single attacker in the past 50 years where the number of slain is even in the double digits. Well... in this specific case they weren't slain... but there were 11 that were victims in the attack: Man charged with murder attempt over sword attackBut, be that as it may... You are confusing "can't happen" with "hasn't happened" (kind of like if someone had asked prior to 2001... "Show me examples of killers flying jets into buildings") I'm not confusing the two. But likelihood of success matters here. It shouldn't be lost on you that the most devastating blade attack you could come up with occurred in 1999, resulted in zero fatalities, and was anything but stealthy. Is it theoretically possible that a single attacker with a blade attack could claim 17 lives or more? Yes. It's also theoretically possible some nutter could kill 17 people with a home-made cannon that launches pit bulls. Let us know when either actually happens.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2018 7:19:03 GMT -5
ibid: Carol Sarler, writing as a guest columnist for The Times, noted that "this new and peculiar pornography of grief" is sometimes called a 'tribute', "the cruder truth is that ersatz grief is now the new pornography; like the worst of hard-core, it is stimulus by proxy, voyeuristically piggy-backing upon that which might otherwise be deemed personal and private, for no better reason than frisson and the quickening of an otherwise jaded pulse. [9] This is too cynical for my taste, but rings true in the limited sense of well-meaning people making something that's absolutely none of their business into their business.Why report about the Pulse shootings, the Vegas massacres, school shootings, the Houston hurricane, etc.? Not our business right? The entire country of Canada has come together in solidarity and grief, Virgil. But you're above it all, correct? Stick your proboscis into the air and bitch. Despicable. Now that you mention it, blanket coverage of the Pulse shootings, the Vegas massacres, school shootings, etc. has had nothing but ill effects either. It's stirred the public up into a state where half are demanding the government do something, no matter how illogical or oppressive, and the other half resents the first half for slashing and burning freedoms they value. It's also well known that the notoriety and infamy afforded to mass shooters--especially terrorists and school shooters--is one of the principle motivations for the attacks. Many have gone on record wanting to out-kill past shooters in order to seize the collective heart of the nation for themselves. If you want to ban any one thing to save lives, it should be reporting of the details of any mass shooting except the number of dead and a brief summary of the circumstances that mentions neither the shooter's name nor his motivations. As for my being "above it all": think of your tribute as the equivalent of people offering thoughts and prayers in the aftermath of a school shooting. Then you'll have no trouble mocking it all you want.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 9, 2018 23:26:26 GMT -5
ibid: Carol Sarler, writing as a guest columnist for The Times, noted that "this new and peculiar pornography of grief" is sometimes called a 'tribute', "the cruder truth is that ersatz grief is now the new pornography; like the worst of hard-core, it is stimulus by proxy, voyeuristically piggy-backing upon that which might otherwise be deemed personal and private, for no better reason than frisson and the quickening of an otherwise jaded pulse. [9] This is too cynical for my taste, but rings true in the limited sense of well-meaning people making something that's absolutely none of their business into their business.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 9, 2018 23:00:03 GMT -5
An old acquaintance once said, "I wish we could get past the 'those guys are evil and intent on destroying the world and we have to kill them all' style of politics and try to find some boring, collaborative, 'what's in the best interest of the country?' style of politics. I'm not singling out the GOP right wing, the Democratic left wing is equally guilty of blaming the opposition." I notice this piece supports AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP 's "Second American Civil War" hypothesis from a few months ago, however. Perhaps you two should collaborate, hash out the details, and co-author a paper. Did you read the actual interview and the words of the presidential historian, or just the writer's introduction to the piece? I read the whole thing earlier, and again just now to make sure I didn't miss anything. It features a thesis on why Pres. Trump won, Ms. Clinton lost, and about the left's inappropriate tolerance of Pres. Clinton's dalliances. He offers a dubious compliment to Pres. Reagan, touts "moderate" politics without providing any specifics on what he considers "moderate", plugs his book, claims he "sounded the alarm bells" about the Trump presidency, claims he was one of the earliest critics of the left's tolerance of Pres. Clinton, talks about Trump as a living gimmick--divisive, narcissistic, lacking empathy or emotion, and seems to desire a return to undefined moderate-ism. How much do you want to bet the group Mr. DeVega claims "hold authoritarian values, and hold America's democratic norms in contempt" are precisely the group Mr. Greenfield (of the 2ACW thread) calls "the true America, resting on the foundation of time-tested traditions and principles", and the group Mr. Greenfield calls "the false America populated by individuals with no nationalism, loyalty, respect for tradition, respect for the Constitution, or even regard for the system of elections" are precisely the people Mr. DeVega calls "us" (presumably the souls who manage to read past the introduction and desire "moderation")? If you're not convinced, consider a sampling of Mr. DeVega's publication record going back to February: Have Christian Nationalists Used Trump to Stage a 'Soft Coup'? Is American Democracy Already Beyond Saving? Donald Trump's Voters Are Just as Selfish as You'd Suspect Do Trump's Voters Even Want to Live in a Democracy? Trump and His Supporters: A Dangerous Cycle of 'Collective Narcissism' Hillary Clinton Was Right About the States That Voted for Trump Donald Trump Has More in Common with a Cult Leader Than You Might Think Did White Privilege Protect the Florida High School Shooter? Could Donald Trump Cancel the Midterm Elections? Toxic White Masculinity: The Killer That Haunts American Life Listen: Donald Trump's Mental Health Continues to Imperil the United States and the World Donald Trump Is a Test of America's Character, and Republicans Are Failing Miserably Click on his name for a complete list. Do you seriously think anything this man calls "moderate" would be remotely acceptable to anyone right of center? To say nothing of the fact that his language is a carbon copy of Mr. Greenfield's, only with hero and villain reversed. Put the two men in a room and one of them wouldn't come out alive. Which is ironic because they're fundamentally saying the same thing: that contemporary left and right are so far apart politically that the two sides can't possibly be reconciled. That's why I say you and Paul should co-author a paper. You don't have to agree who's the moderate and who's the democracy-hating, cult-following fascist. It suffices that you agree "at least one side" fits the bill and follow this to its logical conclusion: war.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 9, 2018 22:04:06 GMT -5
TL;DR: "Grief porn" dominates the modern 24-hour news cycle. We need to recognize it and apply appropriate filters in our routine news consumption. For those not familiar with "grief porn", Wiki describes the variety I'm looking at as "the behavior of the news media in the wake of trauma ... a forced or artificial commiseration in response to unfortunate events". I would add to this: "A pathological tendency to amplify and protract public grief and outrage, especially in the aftermath of a tragedy." Consider a recent bus/semi-truck collision in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. The crash killed 17 young hockey players and seriously injured 14 more. It dominated Canada's national newscasts this evening, which is understandable. However, the longer I watched, the sourer the taste in my mouth got. From the beginning, the newscast is steeped in hyperbolic language. The anchors refer to "an unimaginable tragedy", "unbearable grief and suffering", "a tidal wave of grief across the nation" and various other media-isms that straddle the line between excessive and outright false. The tragedy is far from unimaginable. Tragedies of equal or greater scale happen every day of the week, and have for decades. The grief of the families and friends isn't 'unbearable'. These are clearly people of great faith. They'll grieve, bear the loss, and carry on. Interviews with family members, speaking about the best qualities of the dead, is the least depressing part of the newscast. Nor is there a "tidal wave of grief across the nation". For the minority of Canadians even aware of the crash, it's not too presumptuous to state there's a "sense of dismay and sympathy". A modest social media 'tribute' provides some evidence to support this. But there is no 'tidal wave of grief' or anything close to it. "But Virgil," you say, "You're taking those statements too literally." Perhaps so, but then consider the newscasts themselves. The one we watched monopolized the first half of the 30-minute local newscast and the first half of the 30-minute national/international newscast. How do they fill 30 collective minutes with a news story whose details can reasonably be reported in 5 minutes? Three ways: 1) by interviewing random citizens of Humboldt (the hockey players' hometown) asking questions such as "What do you think this must be like for the victims' families?", 2) making a federal case out of an error by the coroner's office, who misidentified one of the decedents as as one of the in-hospital survivors (and vice-versa), and 3) showing diagrams (fortunately not animations) of how the crash occurred. (1) and (3) are superfluous, bordering on voyeuristic. (2) does nothing but make a bad situation worse, especially because the commentators use it as an opportunity to pile on more hyperbole. They use the expression "even more unbearable" at one point. Most damning of all is the chief's appeal to the media at the news conference held by the officials overseeing medical care for the survivors. "What families are asking for now is privacy and space," he starts off. Then he sets out rules: please, no media approaching the families. No media lurking around the hospitals. No media contacting the healthcare workers attending to the survivors. The families' wishes are clear: leave us alone to grieve. And I don't blame them. They're suffered real loss and have no use for superficial grief porn, which remains superficial no matter how much hyperbole and pot stirring is packed into a newscast. The media has always been bad in this regard, but the 24-hour news cycle, social media, and the growing influence of Millennial anti-stoicism is driving us to new lows. I'm sure everyone reading this can provide their own examples. I could wish media outlets would spend even a tenth as much time stirring people into a frenzy over national problems such as deficits, the TPP, the surveillance state, fictitious econometrics, the fiscal lunacy of central banks, or any one of a hundred issues that ought to cause nation-wide grief.
|
|