Worldwide Protests

Cheap Thrills! · 27-02-2011 06:22PM

liah wrote: »

Think bigger picture here. Particularly in the context of the video I posted. There's a LOT of reasons to care.

I also don't get why you think it's necessary to brand people as having 'faux' sympathy to try to make yourself feel better about your apathy.

Notice what you did there? You assigned a motivation to me that you manufactured. I don't have to 'make myself feel better about my apathy' because as I have clearly displayed on this thread I'm not ashamed/embarassed about it.

The 'faux' sympathy is the established media pretending to care about the deaths of Libyans when all they're really worried about is oil/petrol prices. That is why this is a huge story. Nothing to do with deaths.

liah wrote: »

There are genuine reasons to care about what happens away from your own doorstep, you know.

Whatever will happen will happen. Petrol might get dearer, I'll live. What are the genuine reasons then? Pure altrusim? I think not.

liah · 27-02-2011 06:28PM

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

Notice what you did there? You assigned a motivation to me that you manufactured. I don't have to 'make myself feel better about my apathy' because as I have clearly displayed on this thread I'm not ashamed/embarassed about it.

If that's not your motivation for needlessly assuming how people feel, then what is? I can't think of a reason for branding us all as faux sympathists other than that. My apologies, though-- but can I get the reason so I don't make the same assumption next time?

The 'faux' sympathy is the established media pretending to care about the deaths of Libyans when all they're really worried about is oil/petrol prices. That is why this is a huge story. Nothing to do with deaths.

This is a huge story because it will have global impact. Of course the media want to make money off it but it doesn't mean that anyone who sympathizes or supports the protesters is faking it.

Whatever will happen will happen. Petrol might get dearer, I'll live. What are the genuine reasons then? Pure altrusim? I think not.

Bound to have a massive impact on a wide variety of things, some of which I detailed in an earlier post.

One of them is making people realize there's no such thing as 'them' and 'us,' just 'us,' humans, and that we should support each other's fight for rights (the old 'when they came for the <..>, I said nothing.. when it was my turn, there was no one left" anecdote comes to mind). I think that's always a good thing to reinforce and think about, personally.

imitation · 27-02-2011 06:39PM

liah wrote: »

And that is the most invaluable tool we have when it comes to fighting for our rights. The problem is, the governments of the most powerful countries in the world, which tend to set precedents for laws elsewhere, are terrified of this, because it means the power is out of their hands and back in those of the people.

And the people in the western world can then use this power to crucify old ladys who throw cats into bins. The internets influence also has a very mob mentality feel to it, which isn't all ways the best thing.

Cheap Thrills! · 27-02-2011 06:40PM

liah wrote: »

If that's not your motivation for needlessly assuming how people feel, then what is? I can't think of a reason for branding us all as faux sympathists other than that. My apologies, though-- but can I get the reason so I don't make the same assumption next time?

If you read both my last posts you can see I didn't 'brand' anyone here as a 'faux sympathist' never mind ye all. As I clarified in my last post that is the position of the media. Pretending to care about deaths when all they care about is oil. It's all in my posts if you read them.

liah wrote: »

This is a huge story because it will have global impact.

Aha, so it's nothing to do with altruism. It's all about how it might affect us.

liah wrote: »

Of course the media want to make money off it but it doesn't mean that anyone who sympathizes or supports the protesters is faking it.

See above.

liah wrote: »

Bound to have a massive impact on a wide variety of things, some of which I detailed in an earlier post.

One of them is making people realize there's no such thing as 'them' and 'us,' just 'us,' humans, and that we should support each other's fight for rights (the old 'when they came for the <..>, I said nothing.. when it was my turn, there was no one left" anecdote comes to mind). I think that's always a good thing to reinforce and think about, personally.

It's not practical. There is an infinite amount of injustice in the world and most people on the planet are engaged with merely surviving. And that is as it should be. We know about it. We feel sad and sympathetic. This invokes the ancient 'empathic' response in us. But confusingly for the modern person, there is no appropriate action for us as the scene is too far away. 100 years ago we would not even know about it.

So the modern person is left with the dihlemma of seeing something awful, wanting to do something, a feeling of failed self responsibility. Those feelings are futile and a waste of time. If it were an Earthquake we'd send a few quid. But political turmoil is different. It must unfold.

We can stand by and tut and feel sad but that's about it. I don't see the point in that. We aren't hard wired to be able to cope with the amount of suffering we see on the news. There is no shame in that. It is just simple fact. No need to feel guilty.

Sisko · 27-02-2011 06:48PM

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

But I'm genuinely interested in why you think I should care?

Nor do I of yours. Perhaps you think I'm some knuckle dragging redtop reader. Perhaps you're an idealistic student with no real life problems who feels it necessary to pretend compassion for people thousands of miles away with whom you have no meaningful connection, or perhaps you're quite a worldy working-class adult who has a genuine interest in the politics of that part of the world.

Perhaps none of that. Perhaps you've escaped from Libya or are Libyan. How do I know? The point I'm making is it doesn't really matter to me how many die, I didn't cause it and neither can I do anything about it.

I just don't get this attitude that those who choose to be indifferent to this stuff are somehow adding to the problem and should feel ashamed of ourselves.

Some people are interested, some aren't. That's ok. But there is no duty or obligation to wring your hands in faux sympathy. We can't lie down and die with these people no matter how relentlessly Sky news hammers the story out.

Its actually depressing knowing people like you exist.

Cheap Thrills! · 27-02-2011 06:49PM

Sisko wrote: »

Its actually depressing knowing people like you exist.

lol ah you'll understand when you grow up

Sisko · 27-02-2011 06:51PM

Oh how enlightened you are.

liah · 27-02-2011 06:54PM

Alright, I'll just ignore your numerous in-thread implications and get to the rest of it.

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

Aha, so it's nothing to do with altruism. It's all about how it might affect us.

Er, you realize it's possible to multitask, right? Can I not have sympathy for the suffering of others while also recognizing what this can mean for the world?

'Us' means ALL of us. The entire human race. Not just me, or Canada, or North America, or the West. Everyone.

It's not practical. There is an infinite amount of injustice in the world and most people on the planet are engaged with merely surviving. And that is as it should be. We know about it. We feel sad and sympathetic. This invokes the ancient 'empathic' response in us. But confusingly for the modern person, there is no appropriate action for us as the scene is too far away. 100 years ago we would not even know about it.

Which is why the internet is a massive gamechanger. Essentially all of these protests have been organized through the internet, via coded messages in social networking or other means. Having the internet means that we have a connection to everyone else, can lend a more critical eye to our own home politcs, we can see their strife in real time elsewhere and we can give them our support, even if it is only verbal. We have never had anything like it before accessible to the general public-- TV is one-way, phones were too expensive and not public.

What this means is, momentum builds. Through the 'net, people see that people are fighting for their rights in another part of the world, realize this is possible, and are encouraged to do the same in their own land, which is what has more or less happened and is currently ongoing.

This means there's a big chance that we can really change a lot of countries for the better through global support and recognition of these protests and regain our own personal freedoms as a result. It'll hardly be instant, I don't expect it to be, but it has the potential to really push us into a new age of more transparent and honest politics and that can only ever be a good thing. But there has to be the support there for that to happen, first.

We can stand by and tut and feel sad but that's about it. I don't see the point in that. We aren't hard wired to be able to cope with the amount of suffering we see on the news. There is no shame in that. It is just simple fact. No need to feel guilty.

EDIT: Nevermind, mis-read here.

Sticky_Fingers · 27-02-2011 06:56PM

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

So the modern person is left with the dihlemma of seeing something awful, wanting to do something, a feeling of failed self responsibility. Those feelings are futile and a waste of time. If it were an Earthquake we'd send a few quid. But political turmoil is different. It must unfold.

We can stand by and tut and feel sad but that's about it. I don't see the point in that. We aren't hard wired to be able to cope with the amount of suffering we see on the news. There is no shame in that. It is just simple fact. No need to feel guilty.

Here's an Adam Curtis video dealing with this subject, not completely relevant but makes some interesting points on how the media has coloured our view of the world

Red Hand · 27-02-2011 07:10PM

liah wrote: »

Which is why the internet is a massive gamechanger. Essentially all of these protests have been organized through the internet, via coded messages in social networking or other means. Having the internet means that we have a connection to everyone else, can lend a more critical eye to our own home politcs, we can see their strife in real time elsewhere and we can give them our support, even if it is only verbal. We have never had anything like it before accessible to the general public-- TV is one-way, phones were too expensive and not public.

What this means is, momentum builds. Through the 'net, people see that people are fighting for their rights in another part of the world, realize this is possible, and are encouraged to do the same in their own land, which is what has more or less happened and is currently ongoing.

This means there's a big chance that we can really change a lot of countries for the better through global support and recognition of these protests and regain our own personal freedoms as a result. It'll hardly be instant, I don't expect it to be, but it has the potential to really push us into a new age of more transparent and honest politics and that can only ever be a good thing. But there has to be the support there for that to happen, first.

That's all very well and idealistic, but the internet is a tool, same as printing or the spear or whatever. Someone will be using it to climb on top of the sh*t and grab the power. Same as every other tool in history.

Cheap Thrills! · 27-02-2011 07:10PM

liah wrote: »

Alright, I'll just ignore your numerous in-thread implications and get to the rest of it.

What do you mean; 'implications' as consequences or 'insinuations' ?

liah wrote: »

Er, you realize it's possible to multitask, right? Can I not have sympathy for the suffering of others while also recognizing what this can mean for the world?

Glad you recognise your own motivations.

liah wrote: »

'Us' means ALL of us. The entire human race. Not just me, or Canada, or North America, or the West. Everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mOEU87SBTU

liah wrote: »

Which is why the internet is a massive gamechanger. Essentially all of these protests have been organized through the internet, via coded messages in social networking or other means.

Ok they organised on the Internet. That seems to be incredibly exiting to you but people involved with wars and uprisings have historically used all kinds of means to organise.

liah wrote: »

Having the internet means that we have a connection to everyone else, can lend a more critical eye to our own home politcs, we can see their strife in real time elsewhere and we can give them our support, even if it is only verbal. We have never had anything like it before accessible to the general public-- TV is one-way, phones were too expensive and not public.

What this means is, momentum builds. Through the 'net, people see that people are fighting for their rights in another part of the world, realize this is possible, and are encouraged to do the same in their own land, which is what has more or less happened and is currently ongoing.

This means there's a big chance that we can really change a lot of countries for the better through global support and recognition of these protests and regain our own personal freedoms as a result. It'll hardly be instant, I don't expect it to be, but it has the potential to really push us into a new age of more transparent and honest politics and that can only ever be a good thing. But there has to be the support there for that to happen, first.

Ya think?

What if 'the baddies' use the internet in the same way? What about your Utopian dream then.......no wait.....that's right, they already have.

Nothing new ever happens with war and human nature. Things just go cycles. It becomes less interesting after a while.

liah wrote: »

I don't feel guilty. My heart goes out to them, but I don't feel guilty that I cannot be physically there to help them. It doesn't mean I can't help in any way, though, and I have done what I can.

Sympathy and guilt are two entirely different things. You can have one without the other.

I've sympathy but no great interest. All wars/uprisings etc are essentially the same. There is nothing new with this one.

Sisko · 27-02-2011 07:24PM

If you fail to comprehend the potential world wide impact of mass revolution across the middle east and north Africa and just dismiss it as meaningless, uninteresting and 'just the same as all the other wars, nothing new' then fine, ignorance is bliss and all that. But claiming those who have an interest are just slaves to media manipulation, pot head students or people trying to be trendy makes you look even worse.

All wars are the same? WW1 and WW2 were completely different to anything the world had ever seen before and hopefully never see again.

World War 2 shaped the modern world we live in. Those who have an interest in the world around them, how it came to be, and events that will shape its future cannot be looked down on by those who cannot comprehend such concepts. That is truly ridiculous.

Einhard · 27-02-2011 07:30PM

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

But confusingly for the modern person, there is no appropriate action for us as the scene is too far away. 100 years ago we would not even know about it....

...So the modern person is left with the dihlemma of seeing something awful, wanting to do something, a feeling of failed self responsibility. Those feelings are futile and a waste of time. If it were an Earthquake we'd send a few quid. But political turmoil is different. It must unfold.

Actually, I think you're quite wrong in this. The UN hasn't just slapped sanctions on Gadaffi, and referred the regime to the ICC because national governments felt it was the right thing to do. They took those actions because they knew that their electorates/citizens felt it was the right thing to do. So the empathy of the masses, and the media, both have far greater roles in shaping events than you credit.

liah · 27-02-2011 07:31PM

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

That's all very well and idealistic, but the internet is a tool, same as printing or the spear or whatever. Someone will be using it to climb on top of the sh*t and grab the power. Same as every other tool in history.

Equally as possible as my scenario and I never sad any differently.

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

What do you mean; 'implications' as consequences or 'insinuations' ?

My bad, I meant insinuations, I didn't think to proofread.

Ok they organised on the Internet. That seems to be incredibly exiting to you but people involved with wars and uprisings have historically used all kinds of means to organise.

Yes, I'm aware of this, but as I stated before there has never been a method that is accessible as the internet and that puts everybody on equal ground in the way the internet does. Also, the internet is a big help in tearing away the propaganda mask because it's much faster and easier to find accurate information and to cross-check. Not to say everyone does, but we're hardly limited to the local library and government-sponsored news anymore. We have the world at our fingertips.

Just because there were other means of doing it before doesn't undermine the capability and potential of what we have now. I think a lot of people are completely underestimating how much power there actually is in the 'net as long as it stays free and what it could mean if it isn't any longer.

What if 'the baddies' use the internet in the same way? What about your Utopian dream then.......no wait.....that's right, they already have.

I don't have a Utopian dream. All I'm hoping is for people to start taking notice of their loss of freedoms, to realize that they have the ability to fight it, and start thinking in the bigger picture. I don't expect everyone to do so. I don't expect all the bad and suffering in the world to go away. I don't expect everyone to get along, or for every country to be in harmony. That's ridiculous and I never claimed anything contrary.

The 'baddies' can use the internet all they want, but I sincerely doubt that people will let them. I think people will fight very, very hard to keep the internet neutral.

Nothing new ever happens with war and human nature. Things just go cycles. It becomes less interesting after a while.

Yes, it's cyclical, but life improves with each cycle. The least we could do is try to improve it as much as we can.

I've sympathy but no great interest. All wars/uprisings etc are essentially the same. There is nothing new with this one.

Just because it isn't new doesn't make it any less worth fighting or paying attention to.

Sisko · 27-02-2011 07:34PM

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

That's all very well and idealistic, but the internet is a tool, same as printing or the spear or whatever. Someone will be using it to climb on top of the sh*t and grab the power. Same as every other tool in history.

It is a game changer though, if the internet was at the stages its at now back in 1989 I imagine the Tiananmen square massacre would have gone down very differently. At the very least there wouldnt be such mass ignorance about the subject as there is with the Chinese today (most people in china don't even know about this event)

pragmatic1 · 27-02-2011 07:36PM

Sisko wrote: »

It is a game changer though, if the internet was at the stages its at now back in 1989 I imagine the Tiananmen square massacre would have gone down very differently. At the very least there wouldnt be such mass ignorance about the subject as there is with the Chinese today (most people in china don't even know about this event)

Huge game changer.

liah · 27-02-2011 07:41PM

Sisko wrote: »

dropped the screw in the tuna?

That's what she said

Usersname · 27-02-2011 07:43PM

desaparecidos wrote: »

Thanks for letting us know. The most effective way of displaying you have no interest in the topic is to just not post at all.

Its CheapThrills man, he has to post in ever after hours thread, regardless of wether he actually contributes anything at all.

Cheap Thrills! · 27-02-2011 07:43PM

liah wrote: »

Yes, it's cyclical, but life improves with each cycle. The least we could do is try to improve it as much as we can.

I don't agree that life improves. For every action there is a reaction. Good is created in one place, bad in another. Life changes, it improves for some it deteriorates for others.

liah wrote: »

Just because it isn't new doesn't make it any less worth fighting or paying attention to.

Whether someone chooses to fight for/against something is their own personal decision to decide whether it is worth or not worth fighting for.

The fact though is that the media onslaught DOES cause proven loss of attention in individuals.

Wiki Compassion fatigue:
Journalism analysts argue that the media has caused widespread compassion fatigue in society by saturating newspapers and news shows with often decontextualized images and stories of suffering. This has caused the public to become cynical, or become resistant to helping people who are suffering. Journalism analysts cite research which shows that visual images affect brain activity in demonstrable and measurable ways.

parker kent · 27-02-2011 07:44PM

The Internet could have the same influence in the middle east as the printing press did in Western Europe. The protests could genuinely spark a region wide revolution and end the era of theocratic dominance.

Despite what some in this thread may think, I really feel the wave of protests is bringing about massive change. Interesting to see if it reignites the Green Revolution in Iran.

Cheap Thrills! · 27-02-2011 07:45PM

Usersname wrote: »

Its CheapThrills man, he has to post in ever after hours thread, regardless of wether he actually contributes anything at all.

That is sort of the point of AH. And I'm an she not a he.

As you were.

Sisko · 27-02-2011 07:46PM

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

The fact though is that the media onslaught DOES cause proven loss of attention in individuals.

Wiki Compassion fatigue:
Journalism analysts argue that the media has caused widespread compassion fatigue in society by saturating newspapers and news shows with often decontextualized images and stories of suffering. This has caused the public to become cynical, or become resistant to helping people who are suffering. Journalism analysts cite research which shows that visual images affect brain activity in demonstrable and measurable ways.

This may very well be the case and I dunno if anyone is saying this is not true but its no justification for a disinterest in world changing/shaping events.

Einhard · 27-02-2011 07:47PM

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

I don't agree that life improves. For every action there is a reaction. Good is created in one place, bad in another. Life changes, it improves for some it deteriorates for others.

That seems strangely Zen like for someone who thinks our empathy is wasted on these events.

It's a tad ironic how much time and effort you're spending defending/explaining your apathy!!:D

parker kent · 27-02-2011 07:49PM

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

I don't agree that life improves. For every action there is a reaction. Good is created in one place, bad in another. Life changes, it improves for some it deteriorates for others

How can you really believe that? Life is clearly better for larger sections of society in the 21st century due to numerous game-changing inventions and revolutions. Of course there will always be winners and losers, but it is wrong to say life has not improved. Average quality and length of life is vastly improved thanks to numerous economic and social revolutions throughout history.

Cheap Thrills! · 27-02-2011 07:50PM

Einhard wrote: »

That seems strangely Zen like for someone who thinks our empathy is wasted on these events.

The two are not mutually exclusive though.

And I don't think what you've written above. I simply see it is a truthful fact that some people will not feel interested in this. That is not wrong or evil. It is simply a fact.

It is what it is.

aligator_am · 27-02-2011 07:51PM

I think this dude is well worth paying attention to, I've been reading his stuff for a few years now and he's usually right, you should all look up Gerald Celente, interesting man IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzN0mpdN9IE

Sisko · 27-02-2011 07:51PM

Yeah cheap thrills you appear to have a very bleak out look on things.

Maybe ignorance isnt bliss after all

(joking)

I don't think the disinterest you speak of is necessarily wrong or evil either. I do think however it can be potentially very very dangerous. I mean you must agree if everyone stopped caring it would have a incredibly negitive impact on our world.

Cheap Thrills! · 27-02-2011 07:52PM

parker kent wrote: »

How can you really believe that? Life is clearly better for larger sections of society in the 21st century due to numerous game-changing inventions and revolutions. Of course there will always be winners and losers, but it is wrong to say life has not improved. Average quality and length of life is vastly improved thanks to numerous economic and social revolutions throughout history.

And it is clearly WORSE for other sections.

The economic and social revolutions have beneffitted the FIRST world but have caused huge poverty and misery in the massively increased second and third worlds.

As I said every action has a reaction.

liah · 27-02-2011 07:54PM

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

I don't agree that life improves. For every action there is a reaction. Good is created in one place, bad in another. Life changes, it improves for some it deteriorates for others.

I get what you're saying, it's all relative to a degree, but while there's obviously still a lot of horrible things going on, overall global quality of life/basic human rights have improved massively over time. The majority of countries afford their citizens basic human rights, it's really only the Middle East and Africa that are seriously behind on this on largescale and they're the ones who are currently on the verge of revolution.

There's also more food, higher quality medicine, easier access to education for your average citizen, so on, and so on, and so on.. our lives are incredibly easy in comparison to even 100 years ago (again, with the exception of the Middle East and Africa).

The fact though is that the media onslaught DOES cause proven loss of attention in individuals.

Wiki Compassion fatigue:
Journalism analysts argue that the media has caused widespread compassion fatigue in society by saturating newspapers and news shows with often decontextualized images and stories of suffering. This has caused the public to become cynical, or become resistant to helping people who are suffering. Journalism analysts cite research which shows that visual images affect brain activity in demonstrable and measurable ways.

Yes, I can see that. It's an absolute shame, too.

partyatmygaff · 27-02-2011 07:54PM

Cheap Trills you'll start to care if and when Energy prices skyrocket.

It sickens me that thousands dying have no effect on people. In fact, had it not been for the fact that North Africa is an oil-producing region the revolutions taking place would have never received the amount of coverage that they did.

Worldwide Protests

Comments