I CONFRONT YOU ON THE INTERNETOriginally Posted by Cad
I know several people who are responsible for accidentally killing all kinds of innocent people. Generic angst pales in comparison to personal angst. The best way to deal is to try and fix the situation that led to such atrocities being possible. Educate people.Build safeguards. Make more people sane.
I didn't want him to delete the post, nor did I request he do so. After he claimed I baited him, I want an explanation of how. I wrote so explicitly, and you read it.
Although I called him out on his post, I wasn't going to share it because I thought he'd at least own up to it without the content being revealed. That'd be the decent thing to do, in my view. There's that little spark in me that wants to see people trying to be decent.
So if he makes callous remarks (akin to the famous "free rape card" comment), then deletes them, and then adds further insult, I'm just supposed to be cool with that? Is that what you'd do?
It seems we take different views of editing posts. When somebody edits something out of a post, I see it as a retraction. I don't subsequently respond to the deleted stuff, and if I think it's warranted, I may even edit out previous responses.
The way it fell out here, you wound up shame-shaming him for something the rest of us can't even see, even as he distances himself from whatever it was he said. So yeah, I would have responded differently myself, if I'd had anything else to say after that. When the other guy takes down the post you objected to, you win. Be gracious about it.
Maybe you could stop following the news if that's feasible. It's been a while that I cancelled my cable television subscription, stopped reading the newspapers, and mostly use the Internet to acquire information that would be helping my own hedonistic endeavors. It really makes me feel a whole lot better.
Life is short and frail, so why worry and waste time on this gloomy mediatic circus that is only concerned with the cynical, the extreme and the shocking sides of the world. I don't think that we're forced to follow any of it, or that we are really concerned by any of these events that in the end, don't really have any practical impacts on our petty lives.
Another thing that helps me to fight the blues when it sporadically shows its ugly rear is to walk outside at night. It feels oddly good to roam around a desert urban environment without any traffic, you feel strangely empowered.
In January 1993 Collette Webster, a 27 year old store owner from Michigan, USA made the decision to uproot her life and try to help the ever growing refugee population of Bosnia-Herzegovina. She eventually made contact with the Croatian aid organization Suncokret (Sunflower) and was placed within a camp in the town of Medugorje, Bosnia containing Croat and Muslim women and children forced to flee the heavy fighting in the city of Mostar some fifteen miles away.
After a short time there, Collette was transferred to a camp housed in an abandoned school at Posusje and temporary home to some two thousand Muslim refugees from the Travnik area of central Bosnia. It was here that Collette really found herself and in no time she was teaching English, Mathematics and Art whilst learning Croatian for herself. She later moved on to Capljina to work for a German organization building a transit camp from some disused railway carriages for more of Travnik's Muslims. She personally converted one compartment to a schoolroom.
Collette became particularly involved with one village. Ravno was one of the first Bosnian villages ethnically cleansed by the Serbs during their unsuccessful siege of the Croatian city of Dubrovnik in 1991. Every building, every animal in Ravno was destroyed and the church desecrated in various ways. In May 1993 she told her fiancee, "When this war is over, I'm going to live here."
By July, with the financial demise of the charity employing her Collette, drawing on the knowledge of an Emergency Medical Training course undertaken in the USA, volunteered to help in the Triage area of Mostar's General Hospital, helping to assess and prepare the wounded for surgery. The hospital refused to discriminate on the grounds of ethnicity, which pleased Collette immensely. "Why should someone die because of the religion they believe in," she insisted. Even in this role, she felt she could be doing more and after a month in Triage she approached the HVO and volunteered as a frontline combat medic.
On Monday the 27th September Collette was in west Mostar, scene of some heavy fighting during that year. She was armed only with a medical kit and an apple pie baked for the soldiers. At an area known as The Rondo she was in a room at the top of an abandoned apartment block with a group of International Volunteers who were observing an area captured only the day before; they were in this position for approximately half an hour when a muzzle flash was spotted in the boulevard below. A rocket fired from an RPG-7 came through the window and exploded behind Collette. She was blown to the far side of the room, conscious but mortally wounded with serious lacerations to her stomach, liver, pancreas and right arm.
In a commandeered car, Collette was rushed to the hospital where she had previously worked. The doctors and nurses who were also her friends fought desperately to keep her alive but it was a battle that could not be won and at 10.30 that night, Collette died.
Her body was driven to Split in Croatia the next day and then flown to the capital Zagreb for cremation. At the morgue in Split, twenty nurses were in attendance, each holding a white rose in one hand and a candle in the other.
Sometimes people just need to talk about whatever it is they are thinking and that's part of the process of dealing with whatever shit is keeping them down. That's why there are therapists. Now, If you don't want to read it, then either suggest a therapist or don't respond and move on.
From what I recall of it, it was just being jerk and admitting it. It certainly doesn't sound like "free rape card" level, but I didn't read that one.
His deletion wasn't a retraction of his thoughts, but rather not wanting to turn EE into P&R.
What?
For some people it is easier to admit fears and sadness in an anonymous internet forum than to spouses, friends, or family members.
It's like baring your soul to a bartender.
Aeon is correct - if you have an overwhelming sense of empathy and sense of responsibility for the evil of the world you may be martyring yourself - I used to do that until somehow I limited the amount of responsibility I had. I am going to act in certain ways and be as proper and correct as I can - I do my individual responsibility, and a bit more and consider it enough.
A little less 'fuck you' to the world as ElGuapos suggestion, but just as sad... unfortunately I don't think you're being sarcastic.
I'm no psychiatrist, or even a very good person, but my advice is to stop caring so much about others' suffering and start worrying more about yourself. Aside from "stop bitching and go see a shrink," which I absolutely think you should do post haste, have you considered that maybe you just care too much about stuff that's fundamentally out of your control? Mentally healthy people don't care that much. They recognize that wow, the situation in the Middle East sucks, but you know, it sucks for reasons that really aren't under my control.
The world is a terrible, violent, filthy place, and the only practical solution is a hardened, resolute seflishness.
Reported
Last edited by deepruntramp; 09-03-2007 at 12:16 PM.
Why would such an attitude be sad? It's well established that the news outlets are ridiculously opportunistic and only tend to depress you with stories of doom as many other posters have previously stated. I've found out that whether you take an hour of your life to become aware of them in detail or not every day changes nothing, and is not a duty that you somehow owe to the rest of society. You're reminded enough of the drama by your friends and work colleagues anyway.
And I don't think that it would betray a sentiment of apathy in me either, I'm still just as compassionate towards the world. It's just better to concentrate your energies and your concerns in your own personal world where your thoughts and your actions actually make a difference.
That's what you wrote.
How would you know about something like Darfur if it wasn't for the doom and gloom media?
Or is that irrelevant because there's nothing you can do about it or it has nothing to do with your daily life?
And well established my ass. It's an opinion - and since I work on a daily newspaper not one I share.
And I have no idea how this:
and thisand is not a duty that you somehow owe to the rest of society.
Adds up to this:You're reminded enough of the drama by your friends and work colleagues anyway.
You're egocentric and apathetic. At least own up to it and embrace your chosen philosphy (like in ElGuapos example) instead of pretending that uncaring and compasionate go well together.And I don't think that it would betray a sentiment of apathy in me either, I'm still just as compassionate towards the world. It's just better to concentrate your energies and your concerns in your own personal world.
I just figured indifference to the murder of innocents was at least no better than indifference to the rape of them.
The reason he gave was disingenuous. You won't see him posting that in P&R because that wasn't why he removed it. Him claiming I baited him was simply a lie. I'm not why he took offense from my original post, to the point of attacking me, but I assume it's because he recognized himself in the group that I advised Kareem to ignore. I'll leave it at that.
As for turning to QT3, I can understand why that would look ridiculous to somebody, but when you're feeling hopeless, you turn to a group you know for help. You're turning to them because there's a social bond there, not because they're the most knowledgable. The other thing was that Kareem seemed very genuine in his post.
So, just a couple pages, he'd gotten some posts of good advice that stood out from the usual noise of jokes, trolls, and cat pictures.
One of the things that bothers me--and apparently others, as they weigh in--is the prevalence of the "be apathetic" crowd, whether they mean just don't care, or distract yourself so you won't care. Those that aren't being callous, it sounds like, have just resigned themselves to being unable to improve things.
The perspective looks at the world as this big scale with good and bad weighed against on another is a useless abstraction, because it ignores everything important.
Important things: what has been done, and what can be done, both yourself and with other people
Hanzii:
Is there really anything noble or worthwhile about embracing it? I think it should be questioned.
aphoristic gamer:
There is plenty of information provided from sources other than mainstream news outlets. Your hopelessness is not as sensible as you think. Besides the and billions of examples of small groups and individuals making a difference (some people have posted personal examples, I'm glad to see), there are modern day examples of "big picture" change all over the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_EDSA_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...989-present%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otpor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement
Also realize that we're living in the largest military empire ever known on the face of the Earth. We're citizens of it. And yeah, that does mean that we should try to do something about it.
Embracing/questioning what?
The media?
Just that term 'the media' is getting it all wrong, like it's this huge faceless entity. I'm not saying the media isn't bad, I'm not even saying that's it's not all those things apothecary gamer claims it is.
I'm just saying it's a lot more and if he doesn't like mainstream or Murdoch owned media, there's a lot of others to pick.
And if I had to pick between 'the media' or wikipedia to learn about bad things in the world and what I personally can do about it, I'd pick media.
But be picky and critical and don't just watch the nightly news - I'm certainly not saying all media or even most media is good.
Oh well, there might be a certain level of indifference that goes along with that sort of attitude. But at the root it's definitely not like that.
In the end I feel dehumanized by the news and want to hang on to the remaining humanity that is still left. After you witness so many helpless tragedies, and the death of so many innocents, it all becomes noise and all cases end up sounding alike to you. This is not the sort of stuff that should end up feeling like banal events, which they do if you take an overdose of news over a prolongated period. I also think that to shun some of that drama helps you to have some more perspective when you're exposed to it, and that it's easier to not let it get to you, which is what the original poster seems to be seeking.
How do you muster the energy to post with your heart bleeding everywhere?
More important subject: To do or not to do?
Well, if you actually read the story, that would be a question of whether you're into necrophilia or not. :|
At least that way he doesn't have to worry about her bleeding heart.
That's the embrace I was referring to. Should make more sense now, I hope.
Speaking of the media, and you being a part of making or distributing news, how much attention do you pay to blogs / blogs+news sites like newsvine? Sites like newsvine seem pretty immature, but the aggregation of news (and knowledge and perceptions in general) is just fucking amazing, and gives me a lot of hope. The more voices the better.
This is precisely what I was talking about with hopelessness. If the millions of people that felt like you were to come together and succeed at doing just one small thing, and then another, and then another, we'd be a whole lot better off. Personally, the more I learned the more disgusted I became at our situation, but the more I realized that the people and tools we need are already out there, or can be invented given what we have. You have to go out and actively feed yourself that information, because not only will no one do it for you, those who could have a vested interest not to. I'm sure you know this, but seriously, just put your toe in and get involved.
He probably only gets hard when the suffering is fresh.
I love the notion that a person can't be doing anything right if he is looking for advice on the internet. This whole forum is full of people looking for advice. It's one of the biggest reasons for starting a thread. But when people ask for personal advice, of any sort, some people in this forum jump all over them for being weak/stupid/apathetic/insincere. It's annoying as hell, as is the suggestion that someone should never ask for guidance before taking an action because, you know, that means he isn't actually acting yet. WTF?
I understand what you are saying and feel the same way you do. I find humanity to be very depressing. While some people argue that there is a lot of unseen good in this world, I do not feel that the scene and unseen good come anywhere close to the seen / unseen evil in this world.
I do not like to read the news because it makes me sick. It doesn't even have to be bombs killing people. Things like mortgage lenders who loan people money they know they cannot repay simply because they make a transaction fee if they make a loan. Then the people above them overlook this because they can unload the loan onto some other sucker because they give it a bogus AAA rating when it isn't even worth a B or C rating. Or any self-serving special interests that knowing harm many in order to enrichen a few. Every week there is some other 'big evil' being revealed, but the sad part is that 99% of it is just shrugged at. I think this is because people do not see or care about this stuff for the most part.
Instead people get indignant about the most absurd things. "Gay marriage? Holy shit! Not on my watch!" Talk about fucked up priorities. Even if I were to grant you it is a sin, shouldn't the Christian right be taking on more important sins, like corporate fraud? Lying to the American people in order to start a foreign war? Why not take those issues on instead?
I feel so disgusted by humanity that I do not consider myself a human. I may be biologically a human, but that is where the similarity ends. I can't even relate to how selfish the world is, how shallow the world is, how short-sighted the world is. Of course there are other non-humans out there, but we are in an ocean of humans. Either that, or there are only a few of us humans in an ocean of vile creatures who look like we do. I do not want to call them animals because animals are better than that.
There is something I refer to as the dark gambit, a scenario where I must make a moral choice. It goes something like this:
One day you wake up and instead of being in your bedroom, you are on a space ship (presumably). You are greeted by some nice people who appear to be human to you, but tell you they are not humans. They call themselves celestials. They are part of a greater civilization that spans the universe that exists in peace and enlightenment. There are many races and cultures in this civilization, yet things like war, greed, and whatnot are unknown to them. This group is charged with the care of newer races and is responsible that newer races 'grow up' to become good citizens of the universe.
They explain to you that for the past few hundred years they have been helping humanity out and most recently have been tampering with the environment to keep man's abuses in check. However, recently there has been some disagreement with whether or not to continue with this policy. Some of them now think that the humans will never get their act together, so why keep trying to help them? Maybe it is time for nature to take its course. So a decision was made to get someone from earth and ask them when the time is right.
There is an event that will happen in a few years, two of the three big ice sheets will slide into the ocean. Sea levels around the world will rise by 50 feet.
This will start a chain reaction of really bad events. First off, 100s of millions will die around the world from the initial event. Next the ports in the world will be underwater which means no shipping of food and fuel. Fuel supplies will run out and the world will be plunged into darkness. Furthermore food availability will be greatly reduced because there will be no way to ship food over long distances, let alone keeping it from spoiling. There will be collapses in central authority, and anarchy. Finally disease will set in and kill off even more people. Humanity *will* survive, and may recover within a few 100 years, maybe even less. However they will take a giant step backward, and will suffer terrible losses.
The above is a god - given fact in this scenario. Let’s not argue it; it is important for the question about to be asked.
These people then tell you of the decision you will need to make.
Choice 1: Intervention - They will intervene exactly ONE more time. The events of the above will not come to pass. They will not intervene until the last possible second, which will give the humans a clear understand of what is about to happen (ice sheets start to slide), but at the last second something will happen to prevent it (unexplained in the eyes of the humans) However they warn you, that a similar, but much worse event might transpire in 50 years after they intervene. Essentially the humans will have 50 years to do something about it if they chose to. It is also stated that if the humans chose to change their ways, they can absolutely do this before it is too late.
Choice 2: Non-Intervention - The above scenario will take place, and the suffering will be great. There is no guarantee that in 300 or 500 years that the humans will learn from their past and will not fuck up their world again. Then again, maybe the lesson will be so harsh, they will remember it.
Choice 3: Dominance - Humans will never learn their lessons and are fundamentally corrupt creatures. Humanity will have their civilizations and cultures dismantled. Their history will be erased, along with their identity as humans. In effect only the human animal will survive. When the celestials are finished, the "once humans" will no longer see earth as their home world, but as a new world to be colonized. They will not find any ancient ruins to remind them of their past. All their stories, music, and everything that made them human will forever be erased. The race will be given a new cultural identity that will be peaceful and without hate, greed, etc... They will embrace the existing cosmic culture / technology as their own. In the eyes of the celestials, this is the 'death sentence' choice. A race is defined by their culture, and if their culture is killed, the race is considered dead.
They explain to you that your choice is not to be what you desire to happen, but which scenario do you believe will actually have the most favorable realistic outcome. They also tell you that if you chose choice 1 or 2, and that if humanity does reach its hand out to the stars one day, and have not overcome their corrupt nature, they will suffer true death as a race. The cosmic community will exterminate them. A race's grace period ends the day they can travel to other stars and make war on their neighbors.
So consider your choice carefully. How do you really judge humans to be?
I would love to honestly pick choice 1, but I do not believe it would really work out. The more crap I see people do, mostly the rich and powerful, the more I think choice 3 is the only answer. I hate not having ‘faith’ in humanity, but I would be lying if I said I did.
If you tend to agree with me Kareem, you probably shouldn’t say anything about it. People on this forum already consider me to be a lunatic, and I am sure the above post has gone a long way to re-enforce that opinion of me. You wouldn’t want the stigma to rub off on you.
Well, I probably wouldn't choose 1 either, but that doesn't mean there aren't good people out there, or even that the good don't outweigh the bad overall. The people who have power could be corrupt and the others could be too apathetic to do anything about it. Even THEN it doesn't mean humanity is irredeemably lost.
Here's the thing. You talk about rich and powerful, and that's fine. But I've seen it from the other side. I'll spare the details, but as a kid, I woke up (more than once) to find a stranger sleeping on our couch. It would turn out that he just got out of prison and my stepmom was putting him up for a bit. These people were dregs in every sense. They'd steal from you without a second thought (though I rarely felt physically threatened, just to clarify). I've lived amongst the morally bankrupt and they were FAR from rich or powerful. It comes from all parts of our society.
Those experiences color my attitude a lot, but if I'm objective I find that I still run into more basically good people than bad.
...wow.
If you don't understand why that statement is simultaneously idiotic and hilarious, no force in the universe can help you.
So you're blaming... people like you?
Last edited by NoWayJose; 09-03-2007 at 07:37 PM.
Careful, DeepT.
Answer this troll too angrily and you'll be #38.
I'm reminded of that guy from Toronto who wears a webcam on his head and calls himself a cyborg.
Desslock?
Not even Celestials?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote