Gunmen Attack Hotel in Mali Capital of Bamako.

[shades]

Shades, why don't you move to Russia? Putin would love your ass kissing.

did you think of that one all by yourself?

[MB.]

Yeah, that was a weird one though. Most who died there were kurds or people who wanted peace with the kurds, they were the target. It seemed even Turkey (government) was less upset as they should be. Btw it was all over the news in my country. So there was a lot of attention for it, not as much as Paris, but still a lot.

Nowhere near as much as Paris...certainly no silences at football matches

But the constant comparing is a bit silly though.

I am more upset when my neighbour dies, then when a stranger a couple of blocks away dies. This is kind of the same thing. It's only natural we are more upset about Paris, since we have so much in common and share so much history.

Is it really silly? The thing about taking a humanitarian position on issues is that the very notion dictates that it is an all encompassing thing, y'know, this idea that we're all equal and every human life is worth as much as another, what is a tragedy in Paris is also a tragedy in Ankarra. The idea that one of is greater import due to the fact that it is closer in proximity to you is contrary to the governing principles behind taking these sort of humanitarian stances.

If it happens there, it can happen in my country and that thought is upsetting.

I'm trying to word this in the way that makes it look the least like an attack on you because I've spoken to you a fair bit on here and think you're an alright person but...how can i put this? That comment there seems to suggest that personal fear and the fact that it might happen to you factors into the degree of compassion that you assign to each particular instance. Now stop and think for a moment about the people in the middle east that live in and around areas that are CONSTANTLY being bombed. Think about how they might look at that...I mean there's a serious dose of self interest in that compassion isn't there? Sort of like Val commenting on this thread, barely getting two lines about France out before she goes 'it's a matter of time before there is another attack on the US'...think about that for a moment, think about innocent civilians with innocent lives, just like the people that died in Paris, i know they might've looked a little different than you and had different things for dinner and talked a different language but there's still enough in common there for them to be considered in your compassions on an equal footing...but they get less attention because of proximity. Y'know what thats like? Thats like an old man tumbling down the stairs and dying as you walk behind him and your first response being 'Oh my God...that old mans died...thats terrible...that could've been me!'

And if we are to accept the idea that, really, all compassion comes from a degree of self involvement (i.e. we feel compassion for human death because we are human beings and as such it relates directly to us) then surely based on that there is enough reason to feel as bad about a dead Turk than there is about a dead Parisian.

I wasn't really talking about myself Len, I meant it more in general.

But you are right Len. Never said it was fair, but it's a natural reaction of people. Paris is not only that it's so horrible, but it also scares the shit out of most people. It's too close. We lived in most countries in the West in a 'safe' world, we could die of a car accident, but not cause a bombing, or at least not very likely. Not since IRA and ETA stopped bombing. But this safe feeling just has been proven false. It's one of the reasons people got so upset and more then a bombing in Libanon.

I never said it was fair, but I just tried to explain, why the media is more likely the spend more attention to it.

Guess people getting kind of numb to all the violence in the middle East. I know it sounds horrible and we shouldn't. But when you hear about a bombing there every day, it's part of the daily news.

I am not saying it's right and people should be more compiasionate, but obviously people are not.

I will be honest about myself, I hardly watch the news. I get way too upset, I need to function in my normal life. I do stuff to make me feel better, donate money, clothes, toys. But what does it help anyway? Am I selfish for trying to avoid the news? Maybe I am, probably.

So yeah, It's not fair though, you are absolutaly right about that. The world isn't fair at all.

[Len Cnut]

I avoid the news too, like the plague so im not saying im above it or anything, i barely knew the Turkey attacks happened.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Shades, why don't you move to Russia? Putin would love your ass kissing.

did you think of that one all by yourself?

Nice come back. I am shaking like Michael J. Fox.

[DieselDaisy]

100 people died in a bomb attack in Ankarra last month, didnt notice much media hoopla and mygnr threads about that, just saying. I suppose Ankarra come under the sambo exclusion zone?

Is it strange that we bestow more attention on things that happen in regions that are culturally and geographically closer to us? Additonally, there is something novel about terrorist attacks in Paris, not so much about bombs in eastern parts of Turkey or Berut. Unfortunately.

Orientalism perhaps? Edward Said?

[alfierose]

Yeah, that was a weird one though. Most who died there were kurds or people who wanted peace with the kurds, they were the target. It seemed even Turkey (government) was less upset as they should be. Btw it was all over the news in my country. So there was a lot of attention for it, not as much as Paris, but still a lot.

Nowhere near as much as Paris...certainly no silences at football matches

But the constant comparing is a bit silly though.

I am more upset when my neighbour dies, then when a stranger a couple of blocks away dies. This is kind of the same thing. It's only natural we are more upset about Paris, since we have so much in common and share so much history.

Is it really silly? The thing about taking a humanitarian position on issues is that the very notion dictates that it is an all encompassing thing, y'know, this idea that we're all equal and every human life is worth as much as another, what is a tragedy in Paris is also a tragedy in Ankarra. The idea that one of is greater import due to the fact that it is closer in proximity to you is contrary to the governing principles behind taking these sort of humanitarian stances.

If it happens there, it can happen in my country and that thought is upsetting.

I'm trying to word this in the way that makes it look the least like an attack on you because I've spoken to you a fair bit on here and think you're an alright person but...how can i put this? That comment there seems to suggest that personal fear and the fact that it might happen to you factors into the degree of compassion that you assign to each particular instance. Now stop and think for a moment about the people in the middle east that live in and around areas that are CONSTANTLY being bombed. Think about how they might look at that...I mean there's a serious dose of self interest in that compassion isn't there? Sort of like Val commenting on this thread, barely getting two lines about France out before she goes 'it's a matter of time before there is another attack on the US'...think about that for a moment, think about innocent civilians with innocent lives, just like the people that died in Paris, i know they might've looked a little different than you and had different things for dinner and talked a different language but there's still enough in common there for them to be considered in your compassions on an equal footing...but they get less attention because of proximity. Y'know what thats like? Thats like an old man tumbling down the stairs and dying as you walk behind him and your first response being 'Oh my God...that old mans died...thats terrible...that could've been me!'

And if we are to accept the idea that, really, all compassion comes from a degree of self involvement (i.e. we feel compassion for human death because we are human beings and as such it relates directly to us) then surely based on that there is enough reason to feel as bad about a dead Turk than there is about a dead Parisian.

I think you are right, compassion about anything is largely measured by degree of involvement and personal experience, I guess it's why people have charities of choice and aren't necessarily trying to share charitable giving equally. Logically we should be able to apportion compassion equally to everything but humans are instinctively flawed in this respect. I suppose it's an extension of, for example, if I'm caught up in a dangerous situation with my family I'm going to protect my own kids before someone elses - there's no point pretending I wouldn't. In that situation the best you can hope for is that the other kids also have someone protecting them before anyone else.

I wonder if part of the issue is that some of these countries have less of a 'someone else' to fulfil that role whether that's media, government, neighbouring allies etc... I don't really know the answer, more pondering the question.

I don't know if that makes any sense, it's difficult to pick apart why some things affect you personally more than others. I met an old school friend a while back whose parent had died from the same sort of brain cancer as my mother, I felt compassion for her due to a shared experience but not sadness as such because I had no prior knowledge or connection to their parent, which I suppose is the proximity aspect, obviously my own mother dying had a big affect.

[Len Cnut]

Yeah, that was a weird one though. Most who died there were kurds or people who wanted peace with the kurds, they were the target. It seemed even Turkey (government) was less upset as they should be. Btw it was all over the news in my country. So there was a lot of attention for it, not as much as Paris, but still a lot.

Nowhere near as much as Paris...certainly no silences at football matches

But the constant comparing is a bit silly though.

I am more upset when my neighbour dies, then when a stranger a couple of blocks away dies. This is kind of the same thing. It's only natural we are more upset about Paris, since we have so much in common and share so much history.

Is it really silly? The thing about taking a humanitarian position on issues is that the very notion dictates that it is an all encompassing thing, y'know, this idea that we're all equal and every human life is worth as much as another, what is a tragedy in Paris is also a tragedy in Ankarra. The idea that one of is greater import due to the fact that it is closer in proximity to you is contrary to the governing principles behind taking these sort of humanitarian stances.

If it happens there, it can happen in my country and that thought is upsetting.

I'm trying to word this in the way that makes it look the least like an attack on you because I've spoken to you a fair bit on here and think you're an alright person but...how can i put this? That comment there seems to suggest that personal fear and the fact that it might happen to you factors into the degree of compassion that you assign to each particular instance. Now stop and think for a moment about the people in the middle east that live in and around areas that are CONSTANTLY being bombed. Think about how they might look at that...I mean there's a serious dose of self interest in that compassion isn't there? Sort of like Val commenting on this thread, barely getting two lines about France out before she goes 'it's a matter of time before there is another attack on the US'...think about that for a moment, think about innocent civilians with innocent lives, just like the people that died in Paris, i know they might've looked a little different than you and had different things for dinner and talked a different language but there's still enough in common there for them to be considered in your compassions on an equal footing...but they get less attention because of proximity. Y'know what thats like? Thats like an old man tumbling down the stairs and dying as you walk behind him and your first response being 'Oh my God...that old mans died...thats terrible...that could've been me!'

And if we are to accept the idea that, really, all compassion comes from a degree of self involvement (i.e. we feel compassion for human death because we are human beings and as such it relates directly to us) then surely based on that there is enough reason to feel as bad about a dead Turk than there is about a dead Parisian.

I think you are right, compassion about anything is largely measured by degree of involvement and personal experience, I guess it's why people have charities of choice and aren't necessarily trying to share charitable giving equally. Logically we should be able to apportion compassion equally to everything but humans are instinctively flawed in this respect. I suppose it's an extension of, for example, if I'm caught up in a dangerous situation with my family I'm going to protect my own kids before someone elses - there's no point pretending I wouldn't. In that situation the best you can hope for is that the other kids also have someone protecting them before anyone else.

I wonder if part of the issue is that some of these countries have less of a 'someone else' to fulfil that role whether that's media, government, neighbouring allies etc... I don't really know the answer, more pondering the question.

I don't know if that makes any sense, it's difficult to pick apart why some things affect you personally more than others. I met an old school friend a while back whose parent had died from the same sort of brain cancer as my mother, I felt compassion for her due to a shared experience but not sadness as such because I had no prior knowledge or connection to their parent, which I suppose is the proximity aspect, obviously my own mother dying had a big affect.

When these things tend to wander from blood relations to degrees of proximity to ones home nation one begins to wonder. But then look, its no coincidence that, being of the background I am from, I often find myself positioned in the role of, if not quite defending them but at least trying, to some degree, to see it from there point of view so I suppose there is much in what you say but honestly, i think there is something in these tendencies to guard against. Especially when you are talking about something like the news, which is supposed to be this sort of monolithic thing, it's THE NEWS, though we all know it to be essentially a racket and a business and to do with turn over.

I was handed a proposition once that made a lot of sense to me and it was basically that news items are presented to us in order of value, the bigger headline, the one with the most earning potential are the ones that get the front page, if a paper could make more off of Jordans knockers on the front page than, i dunno, 82 people killed in some remote Middle Eastern craphouse then you will see Jordans knockers first and the 82 dead later. This is not an indictment of western media or anything but rather of the human condition because lets face it, it's not like you're gonna get a more unbiased perspective from Asian or Middle Eastern media, the news is a commodity and it is sold to us as such and should be understood as such.

[alfierose]

Yeah, that was a weird one though. Most who died there were kurds or people who wanted peace with the kurds, they were the target. It seemed even Turkey (government) was less upset as they should be. Btw it was all over the news in my country. So there was a lot of attention for it, not as much as Paris, but still a lot.

Nowhere near as much as Paris...certainly no silences at football matches

But the constant comparing is a bit silly though.

I am more upset when my neighbour dies, then when a stranger a couple of blocks away dies. This is kind of the same thing. It's only natural we are more upset about Paris, since we have so much in common and share so much history.

Is it really silly? The thing about taking a humanitarian position on issues is that the very notion dictates that it is an all encompassing thing, y'know, this idea that we're all equal and every human life is worth as much as another, what is a tragedy in Paris is also a tragedy in Ankarra. The idea that one of is greater import due to the fact that it is closer in proximity to you is contrary to the governing principles behind taking these sort of humanitarian stances.

If it happens there, it can happen in my country and that thought is upsetting.

I'm trying to word this in the way that makes it look the least like an attack on you because I've spoken to you a fair bit on here and think you're an alright person but...how can i put this? That comment there seems to suggest that personal fear and the fact that it might happen to you factors into the degree of compassion that you assign to each particular instance. Now stop and think for a moment about the people in the middle east that live in and around areas that are CONSTANTLY being bombed. Think about how they might look at that...I mean there's a serious dose of self interest in that compassion isn't there? Sort of like Val commenting on this thread, barely getting two lines about France out before she goes 'it's a matter of time before there is another attack on the US'...think about that for a moment, think about innocent civilians with innocent lives, just like the people that died in Paris, i know they might've looked a little different than you and had different things for dinner and talked a different language but there's still enough in common there for them to be considered in your compassions on an equal footing...but they get less attention because of proximity. Y'know what thats like? Thats like an old man tumbling down the stairs and dying as you walk behind him and your first response being 'Oh my God...that old mans died...thats terrible...that could've been me!'

And if we are to accept the idea that, really, all compassion comes from a degree of self involvement (i.e. we feel compassion for human death because we are human beings and as such it relates directly to us) then surely based on that there is enough reason to feel as bad about a dead Turk than there is about a dead Parisian.

I think you are right, compassion about anything is largely measured by degree of involvement and personal experience, I guess it's why people have charities of choice and aren't necessarily trying to share charitable giving equally. Logically we should be able to apportion compassion equally to everything but humans are instinctively flawed in this respect. I suppose it's an extension of, for example, if I'm caught up in a dangerous situation with my family I'm going to protect my own kids before someone elses - there's no point pretending I wouldn't. In that situation the best you can hope for is that the other kids also have someone protecting them before anyone else.

I wonder if part of the issue is that some of these countries have less of a 'someone else' to fulfil that role whether that's media, government, neighbouring allies etc... I don't really know the answer, more pondering the question.

I don't know if that makes any sense, it's difficult to pick apart why some things affect you personally more than others. I met an old school friend a while back whose parent had died from the same sort of brain cancer as my mother, I felt compassion for her due to a shared experience but not sadness as such because I had no prior knowledge or connection to their parent, which I suppose is the proximity aspect, obviously my own mother dying had a big affect.

When these things tend to wander from blood relations to degrees of proximity to ones home nation one begins to wonder. But then look, its no coincidence that, being of the background I am from, I often find myself positioned in the role of, if not quite defending them but at least trying, to some degree, to see it from there point of view so I suppose there is much in what you say but honestly, i think there is something in these tendencies to guard against. Especially when you are talking about something like the news, which is supposed to be this sort of monolithic thing, it's THE NEWS, though we all know it to be essentially a racket and a business and to do with turn over.

I was handed a proposition once that made a lot of sense to me and it was basically that news items are presented to us in order of value, the bigger headline, the one with the most earning potential are the ones that get the front page, if a paper could make more off of Jordans knockers on the front page than, i dunno, 82 people killed in some remote Middle Eastern craphouse then you will see Jordans knockers first and the 82 dead later. This is not an indictment of western media or anything but rather of the human condition because lets face it, it's not like you're gonna get a more unbiased perspective from Asian or Middle Eastern media, the news is a commodity and it is sold to us as such and should be understood as such.

By coincidence I read an opinion piece this morning that I think is sort of getting at the same thing.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/22/paris-attacks-should-see-big-picture

[SoulMonster]

Of course we care more about things closer to us. I read local newspapers, not newspapers from Jakarta. I am more interested in accidents in Stockholm than in Melbourne. I am more disturbed about terrorism in Paris than in Beirut. Because it is closer, both culturally and geographically. We know more French people, we have visted France more often, we know more about Paris, and it is closer to home. This doesn't mean we value these lives differently, or think one terrorist attack is worse than another. It is just closer to home in all the sense mentioned and then we are atomatically more interested and concerned. We are wired that way.

If my neigbour is killed in an accident, that would affect me more than if an unknown person in Beijing dies in an accident. And if my neigbour is murdered, that would affect me even more. Because I know my neigbour more than unknown people far away, and because it has the potential to have more relevance to my own family.

Edited November 22, 2015 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

It is orientalism - as I said. The west puts places like the middle east and Africa into a sort of foreign smudge in which 'bad things' are expected to happen. It is partially a defense mechanism to shield us from the crippling levels of poverty and maladministration (and consequent cyclic levels of violence and extremism) in those countries. It is also partially a product of colonialism/neo-colonialism - even the Age of Discovery.

I mean do I personally care more about the French people than the people of Mali? Not really. The French tried to invade my country meany times, successfully once, and we have this feud with their country which continues to the present day (e.g. De Gaulle vetoing our membership of the EU). Yet suddenly we are sucking their dicks by singing their beastly guillotine anthem. Where is the Mali anthem at Premiership games I ask?

Bollocks. Nelson would be turning in his grave.

[SoulMonster]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/deaths-paris-beirut-media

[Dazey]

It is orientalism - as I said. The west puts places like the middle east and Africa into a sort of foreign smudge in which 'bad things' are expected to happen. It is partially a defense mechanism to shield us from the crippling levels of poverty and maladministration (and consequent cyclic levels of violence and extremism) in those countries. It is also partially a product of colonialism/neo-colonialism - even the Age of Discovery.

I mean do I personally care more about the French people than the people of Mali? Not really. The French tried to invade my country meany times, successfully once, and we have this feud with their country which continues to the present day (e.g. De Gaulle vetoing our membership of the EU). Yet suddenly we are sucking their dicks by singing their beastly guillotine anthem. Where is the Mali anthem at Premiership games I ask?

Bollocks. Nelson would be turning in his grave.

Oh do shut up you absolute tit!

[SoulMonster]

And for a more scientific treatise on the correlation between distance and sympathy and why we care more about things closer to home, read this: Lowenstein, G.; Small, D. A. (2007). "The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring". Review of General Psychology 11 (2): 112–126.

[DieselDaisy]

It is orientalism - as I said. The west puts places like the middle east and Africa into a sort of foreign smudge in which 'bad things' are expected to happen. It is partially a defense mechanism to shield us from the crippling levels of poverty and maladministration (and consequent cyclic levels of violence and extremism) in those countries. It is also partially a product of colonialism/neo-colonialism - even the Age of Discovery.

I mean do I personally care more about the French people than the people of Mali? Not really. The French tried to invade my country meany times, successfully once, and we have this feud with their country which continues to the present day (e.g. De Gaulle vetoing our membership of the EU). Yet suddenly we are sucking their dicks by singing their beastly guillotine anthem. Where is the Mali anthem at Premiership games I ask?

Bollocks. Nelson would be turning in his grave.

Oh do shut up you absolute tit!

Go and play with your widgets.

[Len Cnut]

Of course we care more about things closer to us. I read local newspapers, not newspapers from Jakarta. I am more interested in accidents in Stockholm than in Melbourne. I am more disturbed about terrorism in Paris than in Beirut. Because it is closer, both culturally and geographically. We know more French people, we have visted France more often, we know more about Paris, and it is closer to home. This doesn't mean we value these lives differently, or think one terrorist attack is worse than another. It is just closer to home in all the sense mentioned and then we are atomatically more interested and concerned. We are wired that way.

If my neigbour is killed in an accident, that would affect me more than if an unknown person in Beijing dies in an accident. And if my neigbour is murdered, that would affect me even more. Because I know my neigbour more than unknown people far away, and because it has the potential to have more relevance to my own family.

Yeah but that isn't at all what the point is about is it, the point was, from a humanitarian standpoint these things shouldn't matter. Honestly, this just sounds like rationalising, it sounds like an inability to see the point for what it is, put your hands up and go 'y'know what, thats fucked up'.

100 people, thats 20 less than in Paris died and so far i've had 'comparisons are silly' and 'of course we care more about things closer to us', well there you go, thats spot on what I'm talking about, so the next time one of these tragedys spare me all the fake humanitarian bollocks and call it like it is eh?

When their fuckin' lives are ended it's 'silly' and 'comparisons are silly' and the nearer it gets to you the bigger the load of shit in your nappy gets, thats closer to the truth, just plain and simple self serving cowardice, a lack of guts more or less. 'oh no, it could be us next!' whilst somewhere there's people that live with that reality every day. But fuck them because they're far enough down the road that you can't see em eh?

All this neighbour bollocks, you don't know the people that died in Paris anymore than you did the people in Ankara.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Len B'stard

[MB.]

Still the most lethal and probably most cruel extremist group is actually Boko Haram, hardly see it discussed here. We talk Paris, Turkey, Syria, but hardly the countries in Africa, where Boko Haram is active. Africa is totally another planet, unless western people are killed ofcourse.

And if you read up on what they are doing, it will make you puke, cause they are unbelievable cruel.

[DieselDaisy]

Boko Haram? Does he play for Man City?

(Sorry. Not one of my better jokes!).

[Len Cnut]

Boko Haram? Does he play for Man City?

(Sorry. Not one of my better jokes!).

Holding midfielder i believe

It's translates to 'western education is...', hmmm, i'm not sure how to describe haram, the opposite of halal i guess. Wrong, negative, corrupt.

[MB.]

It's actually not funny at all and a good example of what I meant.

[Len Cnut]

Well it's not really cuz he was taking the piss out of the french earlier too, bless him

[Georgy Zhukov]

Boko Haram isn't as appealing as ISIS. Plus they are black...

[Len Cnut]

No one gives a shit for Boko Haram cuz they ain't attacking anyone or capable of reaching anyone that anyone over here gives a fuck for.

[Georgy Zhukov]

My understanding that these attacks are not from Boko Haram?

[MB.]

My understanding that these attacks are not from Boko Haram?

No it wasn't, but I gave it just as an example. While we are discussing IS very often, we never discuss Boko Haram, cause nobody gives a shit basicly. While they are responsible for more terror attacks and are more lethal and cruel then IS. Allthough they pledged being loyal to IS recently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/boko-haram-isis_564cd890e4b00b7997f8c15d

Edited November 23, 2015 by MB.

[Lio]

Oh come on, Roky, Paris is about 3 hours' drive from my place, half of my country is in lockdown because of terror threats, most terrorists come from my country, and I bet there aren't many GNR fans in Africa, ergo even fewer posters from there. There are quite a few posters from France, Belgium, the Netherlands etc. Excuse us for feeling more involved in what's happening behind the corner than for what happens in Mali.

It's all been said by SoulMonster and MB, but another important thing is that terrorist attacks happen more in Beirut or in Mali than it does in Paris. In fact, a Flemish correspondent who lives in Beirut, was asked the question what the newspapers in the Middle-East reported on. According to him, the Beirut attacks only got more coverage in Lebanon, the rest of the Middle East reported more on Paris than on Beirut. Simply because it happens more in the Middle East than in Paris.

It doesn't make a dead person in Paris worse than one in Beirut, no one ever said that. But it is another explanation of why Paris gets more coverage than Beirut, or Mali.

As for the Mali attack: two Belgians died there, Lenny, three Belgians died in Paris. It seems like we're involved everywhere (only as victims in Mali, for the time being anyway :-/). But I guess I always thought Mali was a more dangerous place to visit than Paris, that's why I'm more shocked by what happened in Paris, I guess. That, and the Belgian links.