Gunmen Attack Hotel in Mali Capital of Bamako.

[Dazey]

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

I think that the reason people are less concerned about Boko Haram is that they don't seem to have a lot of reach outside of Africa whether that's actually true or not. ISIS are attacking seemingly anywhere and everywhere meaning that people in the west see themselves as potential targets.

[SoulMonster]

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.

I have no idea how caring more about things closer to you has anything to do with cowardice and a lack of guts .

[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

I think that the reason people are less concerned about Boko Haram is that they don't seem to have a lot of reach outside of Africa whether that's actually true or not. ISIS are attacking seemingly anywhere and everywhere meaning that people in the west see themselves as potential targets.

Ofcourse and that's what I was trying to bring across. Nobody ever mention them, hardly in the media, also nobody on mygnr. The conflict in the middle east gets all the attention, by everybody. Nobody basicly cares. But that they are killing entire villages on a daily basis, is never a thing, cause well.....Africa. I never heard anybody here caring for what's going in the countries Boko Horom is active . And the reason is that it has no influence of us at all. The West is not really involved there, so nothing to discuss, it's not interesting, but their lives matter just as well. So everybody can stop blaming others for being more involved in the Paris attacks, then the Beirut one, cause nobody gives a shit about the daily terror attacks in Nigeria. If that was the case, it would have been mentioned.

I am not going to pretend, I am not guilty of that as well. Cause the middle east has my attention way more, also before Paris, but now even more. My kids went to see Ajax and the stadium was filled with extra police and even army, so the Paris attacks are way more visible for me. Just look at Brussels now, a total lock down this weekend. Since my country and Belgium are pretty connected, it just has a lot of coverage, but also influence.

So basicly what Lio said.

[Len Cnut]

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.

I have no idea how caring more about things closer to you has anything to do with cowardice and a lack of guts .

Well allow me to explain. A terrorist attack occurs, 120 people die, mass outpouring of grief, silences observed across the world...a point is made regarding 100 people dying in Ankara a month earlier, basically an observation is made regarding the an inconsistency that exists in our behaviour and the general human condition and how such action stands contrary to the fundamentals of humanitarianism...the response, on the part of some at least, is 'these comparisons are silly' and 'of course you're going to care more about your own' etc etc.

Now...the idea is that Paris is a humanitarian tragedy (which it was) and thats why you feel bad about it. The senseless loss of innocent life right? But then it becomes not about that but about how close the attack is to you. meaning the further away it is the less it matters. But the closer and closer it gets to you the less 'silly' it becomes...why is that? Because you love your neighbours more than those further out? Or is it that you are afraid, personally afraid, afraid that this thing is getting closer and closer to you, afraid that YOU might die, afraid that something might happen to you. But push it further and further away and the further it gets the less afraid you get and the less it matters to you until it's on the other side of the world and you kinda feel comfortable again and it becomes about 'oh it's happening to them over there, you kinda expect there don't you?'. THAT, to me, is cowardice, THAT, to me, has nothing to do with humanitarianism and it shows the stance up and moreover the human condition up for what it's really about.

Pakistan gets hit by drones ON A REGULAR...by its own Allies, drone attacks. People die there constantly, men, women, children...and no one gives a monkeys. Think about that for a second...say for instance there were terrorist cells hiding in Norway and the way Allied Forces, say England, France, America started bombing Norway with a view to ridding that terrorist element...drone attacks. How much do you reckon that would bother you? i mean bearing in mind here you are responding as you are to terrorism against one of your neighbours, you're a man with family, kids wife right? How do you think you would feel about that? But because it's THOSE people in that far away land it kinda becomes OK, it becomes silly to compare with other things that happen to other countrys?

So much is made of world economy, international community, the world or the forces of good uniting in the face of tragedy...for everyone except 'x'. So when Turkish fans boo during the silences they're not disrespecting the death of 120 Parisians, they are making a point of the lack of regard and respect for when similar happens to them. I mean UEFA, FIFA, whatever one it is, these are international organisations...even they see it fit to respect one and ignore the other...why is this?

People look at this stuff interpret it as about race or religion (which i suppose could be argued) but i don't. I think its about money...and social class...not necessarily on a ground level on the part of people like yourself or me or Lio or MB or anyone involved in this discussion...but in the eyes of the forces that control the media and various international organisations who devise these public responses to whats going on, it's like a version of class distinction. The fact is those people don't matter...because they are poor and by virtue of being poor they don't have much effect on us. Because we don't really control the level of response, do we? I mean to be fair about this you guys don't control who gets the bigger headline or who gets silences at football matches and all the other various things that happen in the wake of such tragedy. We're almost kind of led to it, aren't we? Big headlines, big news coverage, all these things play a part in the level of response to such things.

The truth is we don't care about ignorant natives. Say for instance there's a villiage in Afghanistan, a small village, 300 population, these people don't have birth certificates, passports, they don't know their proper ages, there's no documented evidence of their being alive...they get bombed to shit and wiped out, who cares, it's like they never existed right?

So when the poor people get popped it's like 'oh, yeah, the middle east, yeah, people die over there all the time, don't they?' But then the danger gets closer and closer and closer to all the comfortable rich (relatively at least) folk and the closer it gets the more and more and more concerned they get...until it's on their doorstep and it becomes near panic...do you understand why something like that could be percieved as to do with cowardice? Particularly on the part of one of these ignored places who are attacked regularly...they look on at someone like yourself, talking about how the closer it is the more it matters to you...but not because of fear, because of your humanitarianism...meanwhile it's ACTUALLY happening to them, week in week out...but that figures lower on the chart of humanitarian importance because it's further away...but the closer it gets to you the more your 'humanitarianism' swells. Is my point clearer yet?

Edited November 23, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Chris1989]

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

Anybody done the whiter shade of pale joke yet?

[SoulMonster]

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.

I have no idea how caring more about things closer to you has anything to do with cowardice and a lack of guts .

Well allow me to explain. A terrorist attack occurs, 120 people die, mass outpouring of grief, silences observed across the world...a point is made regarding 100 people dying in Ankara a month earlier, basically an observation is made regarding the an inconsistency that exists in our behaviour and the general human condition and how such action stands contrary to the fundamentals of humanitarianism...the response, on the part of some at least, is 'these comparisons are silly' and 'of course you're going to care more about your own' etc etc.

Now...the idea is that Paris is a humanitarian tragedy (which it was) and thats why you feel bad about it. The senseless loss of innocent life right? But then it becomes not about that but about how close the attack is to you. meaning the further away it is the less it matters. But the closer and closer it gets to you the less 'silly' it becomes...why is that? Because you love your neighbours more than those further out? Or is it that you are afraid, personally afraid, afraid that this thing is getting closer and closer to you, afraid that YOU might die, afraid that something might happen to you. But push it further and further away and the further it gets the less afraid you get and the less it matters to you until it's on the other side of the world and you kinda feel comfortable again and it becomes about 'oh it's happening to them over there, you kinda expect there don't you?'. THAT, to me, is cowardice, THAT, to me, has nothing to do with humanitarianism and it shows the stance up and moreover the human condition up for what it's really about.

We have a larger capacity for sympathy towards thsoe closer to us. But it is REAL sympathy. It is not fake humanitarianism, or whatever you call it. We genuinly feel for Parisians, I hope. But yes, we feel less for people in Beirut. Because there is a spacial component to our ability for compassion. Just like I would be more horrified if it was Norwegians who were murdered -- and unforunately I can say this with conviction. The only people who don't have this automatic judgment of acts in relation to their potential to affect you and your loved ones, are those who don't feel compassion for anyone whatsoever and are hence equally unshaken, or those -- poor guys -- who feel equally horrified by ANY deaths ANYWHERE in the world (that must be a horrible condition).

As for cowardice. Being worried when terrorism comes closer to home isn't really cowardice, is it? It is just a concern from something that might harm you and the life you are living. Like any other dangerous or disruptive thing. This worry or concern in itself doesn't imply a lack of courage. Cowardice would be if this worry led to cowardic (?) actions. I mean, we would probably all be worried if meeting a scary man in a dark alley, but how we react to that situation defines courage, not the worry itself.

[Len Cnut]

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.

I have no idea how caring more about things closer to you has anything to do with cowardice and a lack of guts .

Well allow me to explain. A terrorist attack occurs, 120 people die, mass outpouring of grief, silences observed across the world...a point is made regarding 100 people dying in Ankara a month earlier, basically an observation is made regarding the an inconsistency that exists in our behaviour and the general human condition and how such action stands contrary to the fundamentals of humanitarianism...the response, on the part of some at least, is 'these comparisons are silly' and 'of course you're going to care more about your own' etc etc.

Now...the idea is that Paris is a humanitarian tragedy (which it was) and thats why you feel bad about it. The senseless loss of innocent life right? But then it becomes not about that but about how close the attack is to you. meaning the further away it is the less it matters. But the closer and closer it gets to you the less 'silly' it becomes...why is that? Because you love your neighbours more than those further out? Or is it that you are afraid, personally afraid, afraid that this thing is getting closer and closer to you, afraid that YOU might die, afraid that something might happen to you. But push it further and further away and the further it gets the less afraid you get and the less it matters to you until it's on the other side of the world and you kinda feel comfortable again and it becomes about 'oh it's happening to them over there, you kinda expect there don't you?'. THAT, to me, is cowardice, THAT, to me, has nothing to do with humanitarianism and it shows the stance up and moreover the human condition up for what it's really about.

We have a larger capacity for sympathy towards thsoe closer to us. But it is REAL sympathy. It is not fake humanitarianism, or whatever you call it. We genuinly feel for Parisians, I hope. But yes, we feel less for people in Beirut. Because there is a spacial component to our ability for compassion. Just like I would be more horrified if it was Norwegians who were murdered -- and unforunately I can say this with conviction. The only people who don't have this automatic judgment of acts in relation to their potential to affect you and your loved ones, are those who don't feel compassion for anyone whatsoever and are hence equally unshaken, or those -- poor guys -- who feel equally horrified by ANY deaths ANYWHERE in the world (that must be a horrible condition).

As for cowardice. Being worried when terrorism comes closer to home isn't really cowardice, is it? It is just a concern from something that might harm you and the life you are living. Like any other dangerous or disruptive thing. This worry or concern in itself doesn't imply a lack of courage. Cowardice would be if this worry led to cowardic (?) actions. I mean, we would probably all be worried if meeting a scary man in a dark alley, but how we react to that situation defines courage, not the worry itself.

Yeah but I've accounted for all this in prior posts, we're all guilty of this, not even sure if guilty is the right word but it is what it is. You can rationalise this as many ways as you want but the fact remains, from a humanitarian standpoint, it is wrong, it is inconsistent. And we're not talking about a minor disparity too, this is the point, were it a case of Ankara being a massive thing but Paris being just that bit more widely grieved over due to it's proximity then I'd have less to say on the matter but the outpouring of support and prayers and coverage of this compared to Ankara is massive.

And even this thread, if mygnrforum can be considered an indicator of anything, it's four pages long and most of those four pages is going on about Paris. So yes, it is cowardice, it is moral cowardice, alright, you can claim proximity, what about all the Americans? What about someone like Val going 'it's gonna be America next!' based on exactly zero information, what is that, what can that be considered as other than the language of cowardice?

There are people who put up with this stuff EVERY day and have to carry on living their lives in and around the carnage, and there's us in our central heated house, watching Paris unfold on our plasma screen TVs, with our knees knocking going 'oh my God, it's us next, it's us next!', it is precisely cowardice. 'oh but they're used to it!', give me a fucking break.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't grieve or mourn Paris or that people are necessarily wrong or bad or evil for feeling fear...what does make people wrong and bad however is looking over at another nation having the same shit happen to them and instead of just aknowledging what is a glaring disparity and injustice, instead of just going 'yeah, y'know what, that is fucked up' you get all kinds of silliness and excuses and 'oh well they are further away!' and all that bullshit, that is really mealey mouthed.

[SoulMonster]

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.

I have no idea how caring more about things closer to you has anything to do with cowardice and a lack of guts .

Well allow me to explain. A terrorist attack occurs, 120 people die, mass outpouring of grief, silences observed across the world...a point is made regarding 100 people dying in Ankara a month earlier, basically an observation is made regarding the an inconsistency that exists in our behaviour and the general human condition and how such action stands contrary to the fundamentals of humanitarianism...the response, on the part of some at least, is 'these comparisons are silly' and 'of course you're going to care more about your own' etc etc.

Now...the idea is that Paris is a humanitarian tragedy (which it was) and thats why you feel bad about it. The senseless loss of innocent life right? But then it becomes not about that but about how close the attack is to you. meaning the further away it is the less it matters. But the closer and closer it gets to you the less 'silly' it becomes...why is that? Because you love your neighbours more than those further out? Or is it that you are afraid, personally afraid, afraid that this thing is getting closer and closer to you, afraid that YOU might die, afraid that something might happen to you. But push it further and further away and the further it gets the less afraid you get and the less it matters to you until it's on the other side of the world and you kinda feel comfortable again and it becomes about 'oh it's happening to them over there, you kinda expect there don't you?'. THAT, to me, is cowardice, THAT, to me, has nothing to do with humanitarianism and it shows the stance up and moreover the human condition up for what it's really about.

We have a larger capacity for sympathy towards thsoe closer to us. But it is REAL sympathy. It is not fake humanitarianism, or whatever you call it. We genuinly feel for Parisians, I hope. But yes, we feel less for people in Beirut. Because there is a spacial component to our ability for compassion. Just like I would be more horrified if it was Norwegians who were murdered -- and unforunately I can say this with conviction. The only people who don't have this automatic judgment of acts in relation to their potential to affect you and your loved ones, are those who don't feel compassion for anyone whatsoever and are hence equally unshaken, or those -- poor guys -- who feel equally horrified by ANY deaths ANYWHERE in the world (that must be a horrible condition).

As for cowardice. Being worried when terrorism comes closer to home isn't really cowardice, is it? It is just a concern from something that might harm you and the life you are living. Like any other dangerous or disruptive thing. This worry or concern in itself doesn't imply a lack of courage. Cowardice would be if this worry led to cowardic (?) actions. I mean, we would probably all be worried if meeting a scary man in a dark alley, but how we react to that situation defines courage, not the worry itself.

Yeah but I've accounted for all this in prior posts, we're all guilty of this, not even sure if guilty is the right word but it is what it is. You can rationalise this as many ways as you want but the fact remains, from a humanitarian standpoint, it is wrong, it is inconsistent. And we're not talking about a minor disparity too, this is the point, were it a case of Ankara being a massive thing but Paris being just that bit more widely grieved over due to it's proximity then I'd have less to say on the matter but the outpouring of support and prayers and coverage of this compared to Ankara is massive.

And even this thread, if mygnrforum can be considered an indicator of anything, it's four pages long and most of those four pages is going on about Paris. So yes, it is cowardice, it is moral cowardice, alright, you can claim proximity, what about all the Americans? What about someone like Val going 'it's gonna be America next!' based on exactly zero information, what is that, what can that be considered as other than the language of cowardice?

There are people who put up with this stuff EVERY day and have to carry on living their lives in and around the carnage, and there's us in our central heated house, watching Paris unfold on our plasma screen TVs, with our knees knocking going 'oh my God, it's us next, it's us next!', it is precisely cowardice. 'oh but they're used to it!', give me a fucking break.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't grieve or mourn Paris or that people are necessarily wrong or bad or evil for feeling fear...what does make people wrong and bad however is looking over at another nation having the same shit happen to them and instead of just aknowledging what is a glaring disparity and injustice, instead of just going 'yeah, y'know what, that is fucked up' you get all kinds of silliness and excuses and 'oh well they are further away!' and all that bullshit, that is really mealey mouthed.

I haven't claimed that the ENTIRE explanation for this difference in expressed concern over what happened in Paris and Ankara is due to us automatically beign more compassionate about things closer to home, there's also racism and a general indifference to muslims and swarthy people But I think the MAJORITY of the difference is due to the, well, more benign mechanism of the spaciality of compassion.

[Len Cnut]

We're on the same page then although I'd have to think about it a bit before i claimed racism specifically.

[SoulMonster]

We're on the same page then although I'd have to think about it a bit before i claimed racism specifically.

I like to think on the evolutionary basis of compassion, racism, xenophobia, empathy. If you can indulge me some social darwinism. Throughout the vast majority of our history, mankind has lived in small social groups, often interrelated. The cooperation of a group allows higher chances of survival for all. So it's a pretty neat system. To secure that we work well in tightly-knit groups, and that everybody's better off, things like empathy and compassion have been evolved. BUT, these things are only evolved to help others in our group because we directly benefit from the health of the group. It is a mechanism that improves the group we are part of, but would have much less value when directed out of the group to people outside who would rarely be able to return the favor in a tit-for-tat fashion. That is why there is a spacial component to sympathy and compassion. Of course, these things doesn't work 100 %, it is not a water-tight separation, and in modern society it is muc harder to distingush between "groups" the same way. So we tend to be compassionate about everyone, but in relation to social and geographic distance, even to the extent of us caring for other animals.

On the other hand, these groups tended to fight for resources. So it was important for mechanisms that would mean one would fight away other groups, was evolved too. Anyone not recognized as part of our group, due to differences in appeareance and conduct, would be someone we would have an ingrained skepticism against, even to the extent of animosity and opposition. They wre inherent threats to us and our group. This is more clearly marked for men, who have been evolved to fear other men coming in to take away their resources (like their women) and are designed for fight, whereas women, who would want to out-breed, would be much more interested in strangers. Again, we see these same mechanisms in modern society as racism and xenophobia, and slight differences between the sexes.

Is it good that we act this way? I think we whould do what we can to suppress racism, xenophobia and everything else that is activelly hurting other people. As for compassion. I honestly don't think we would be better off to feel AS sympathetic for everyone, everywhere. It would be too much of a strain on us mentally. It is hard enough to be saddened by all the bad things that happen close to us if we shouldn't take the whole world on our shoulders, too. This doesn't mean we shouldn't care about people far away - we do! and we should - just that it is okay to care less for some, no matter how horrid that sounds, because we don't have much of an alternative if we are to function properly, and then it might as well be social and geographic distance that is the discerning factor.

[DieselDaisy]

I think there is a lot of fake sympathy. The FA and FIFA for instance love a good bit of faux sympathy - look at all of that ''kick out racism'' bollocks. They love these campaigns. The Paris attacks provided just the sort of material football loves for these fake demonstrations of public sympathy.