RED DAVE

From garraty:

You said it, comrade, not me.

But let me add to this post. It is not, as you seem to express it, a question of feeling. What a person feels isn't nearly as important as what they do. Expressions of nihilistic individualism, on a feeling level are only important insofar as they sneer in the face of people who are in pain and could use some help.

On a completely different level, what you are justifying, by your callousness, is murder, so long as you and yours don't get murdered. You can espouse this if you like, but then don't be surprised when you need help and people piss in your face like you did or fantasized you did in theirs.

RED DAVE

garraty

Whose face did I sneer into? These people are on the other side of the world! I will never meet them in real life, will never see them beyond my TV screen. What can I do? Send a dollar to a family? Spend a quite moment reflecting? If someone cares, but is too lazy to get off their ass and help are they as evil as I am?

Quote:

On a completely different level, what you are justifying, by your callousness, is murder, so long as you and yours don't get murdered. You can espouse this if you like, but then don't be surprised when you need help and people piss in your face like you did or fantasized you did in theirs. RED DAVE

I still don't understand this comrade, how is my lack of empathy for complete strangers who have nothing to do with my life advocating murder? How is it pissing in their face if they are unaware of my callousness? If I wasn't feeling slightly trollish because I'm bored at work you wouldn't know how I felt so how am I pissing in anyone's face?

I may be an arsehole but I don't remember any fantasies about deriding those who have lost. I'm not dancing on any graves, I just don't care about them.

And having experienced loss I can assure you I won't be worrying about people worrying about me, flowers and a sombre poem really don't do shit you know.

lunachick

RED DAVE,

Not to promote garraty's stand so much, but I get what he's saying.
From what I can gather, garraty is an Australian aboriginal. A friend of mine lives in the Aussie outback is an advocate and teacher for Aboriginal's, and from what he's told me people DO piss in their face when they need help. His people are among some of the most ill-treated and forgotten people in the western world. And guess what? many people will say they care about the victims of the WTC, and maybe even donate money and real aid to their families. Many people will say they care about the victims of the US invasion on Iraq, and maybe even donate money and real help to the victims. Fuck all people care about the Aboriginal and will donate money and real aid to them.

I guess what I'm saying, is humanity tends to have pet "empathy" projects - and I agree with what garraty is saying - they will inevitably depend on how much media coverage they get. Few people will go out of their way to really find out much about the world and the people within the world unless it makes news and a good cafe gossip take of how much you feeeeel for those people, and how much you donated to whatever happens to be the most effectively advertised charity to "help" said people in need. Often that donation is more a way of being able to say, "look at me, I'm such a good person - see how much I feel and help?"

</end cynical, stream-of-conscious rant.>

RED DAVE

From garraty:

The point is that you took a positive act by publishing your thoughts. What you do in the privacy of your own mind is your business. But when you publish your opinion, you have to take some responsibility for your effect on other people. (I feel like I'm talking to a six year old, here.)

When you express your lack of care in public, in the presence of people who might need someone who cares, you have an effect. you maY not want to have one, and you may not care about your effect, but you're having one. It's kind of like advocating tax cuts for the rich. You may not want to hurt the poor, but, somehow, it ends up that way and responsibility is in order.

Most of us tend, openly or not, to adhere to the Kantian imperative: what you do personally should stand as a general principle. When you express your own lack of caring, you say, essentially, that care isn't important, and, again, you're saying it in public and hurting people. I don't mean to sound like some mushy-hearted liberal here. Shared pain is an essential part of human life.

Let me spell this out for you. Once again, when you went public with your opinions, people ceased to be "complete strangers." Should the relative of a 9/11 or Iraqi invasion victim reads your writing, read your expression of noncare, their despair is deepened. Maybe you don't understand this. I've had my share of loss (a brother, too), and the expression of care and love from close friends was immensely comforting. If I had come across, publicly, some writing such as yours (and such adolescent nihilism is common), I know that my pain would have been deepened.

Had you said it to my face (or to the face of the relative of a 9//1 or Iraqi invasion victim), you might have lost some teeth. Now that's just a natural human response to a cold-hearted bastard. Note how even the Bushians are careful to express sympathy for their victims, hypocritical scum that they are.

Solidarity Forever.

RED DAVE

Jat

Yes, that is a prime example of the rather stupid and ignorant creature called an Ugly American. They are not like the rest of the population and are in fact a big embarrassment to them. It is also sad because this is the main example of Americans that the rest of the wrold gets to see and thus most think that all Americans are as ignorant and stupid as these UAs.

garraty

Thankyou lunachik, you guessed right, although my blue eyes often lead people astray.

Thankyou RED DAVE, although neither a six year old nor adolescent I didn't quite grasp what your point was.

I understand it now.

This post is not about politics though, and having said and read what I feel I need to I won't be adding anymore to it.

Loren Pechtel

Evangelion

Newsflash - America does not have a monopoly on sympathy.

People were dying in terrorist-related disasters long before September 2001, but did I ever see the Brits and the Irish wringing their hands and demanding unequivocal support from the rest of the world? No.

America's response was grossly out of proportion to the event.

Yes, it was a pretty big disaster, as disasters go. Yes, it was quite horrendous. But no, it not the be-all and end-all of terrorism, and no, I should not have to squeeze out a tear every time I hear about it.

Get some perspective, America! There are other nations out there, and many of them have been through a hell of a lot more than you. You've had your 5 minutes of fame - now shut up and get over it.

I'm not interested.

dublczek

For someone not interested you sure said a lot.

Zar

Are there really people who think this way? Yes. Absolutely. All over the place. Some are more eloquent than others at providing long-winded intellectual cover for it, but at its core its all the same.

Some of you seem to want to believe that this link provides an example of some "arrogant, belligerent and ignorant" Joe Six Pack who is "out of his mind" and reflects an "extreme." It seems clear to me, though that this viewpoint reflects, in crude layman's terms, the attitude the leadership of the United States has taken. In what way do the thoughts, actions and speech of the Bush Administration significantly differ from this, save a modicum of diplomatic language and a slightly more patient approach owing to a greater understanding of the realities more than any personal restraint? Also, I think this view is becoming mainstream, if not incontrovertably dominant.

This is your typical product of the tone being set by the administration. Indeed, most supporters of Bush here seem not to differ much from this man. What they say ultimately amounts to the same.

Most Bush supporters here seem to echo this. Even having been exposed to all the doubts and dangers of empire, being shown history and all the rest, they are just as adamant as before. Indeed, I'd say they are likely "worse" than the man quoted here because they know so much and yet look the other way.

The ultra-fundamentalist capitalism displayed here isn't far from the attitudes of many here. Neo-Darwinism is a constant undercurrent in a capitalist sense of "justice."

Well, I don't know how many people here actually want this. But there certainly is little concern for a world-wide split along these lines.

This seems to typify the majority (not all) of American attitudes toward the world. As long as I get mine, I don't care where it came from.

Typical, though crudely put.

Not too far off. This seems like a common attitude. Anything that gets in the way of our dominating everything is "propaganda". Death is not a big deal, although its usually nicer if someone else dies. Destruction is not to be feared, its how we live. Its a way of life. Why this rarely applies to the speaker himself is an interesting question. Perhaps being hopelessly gluttonous and hedonistic doesn't lend itself to introspection.

Does any of this really, at the bottom, disagree with most (not all) Bush cabal supporters here?