http://www.news.com.au/world/van-minh-dat-5-gets-tangled-in-kite-then-falls-to-his-death-in-ho-chi-minh-city-vietnam/story-fndir2ev-1227265585241

I’ve not viewed the video myself but its seems to be the norm now for CCTV and amateur video of tragic events to become public property, in fact it’s almost expected for authorities to release them so the world can have a gawk.

I’m not suggesting they be banned but is it just me or is it highly distasteful for the world to get a thrill (wrong word perhaps but maybe not) from seeing people die in such a manner. Were does it end will we eventually get live footage of state sanctioned executions as a means of entertainment.

ISIS gets its thrills and even perhaps justification for its videos of beheadings, murders,etc as numerous people view them on The Youtubes. The world says how outrageous it is but they still view them when if they were really upset they’d not view them and take away that power ISIS has by making it a spectacle.

Cymek said:

Why is motor racing the most popular sport?

Not because they want to be deafened by flashing glimpses.

They want to see the crash and burn.

• I’ve not viewed the video myself

I happened across a still from the video in a news story and straight away backed out of the page, thinking “I don’t want to see this.” I conciously make that choice often these days with the prevalence of tragedy being filmed by bystanders and the like. I don’t understand the need for news organisations to have to show the video at all. They don’t have faith in the written word, or don’t think we will believe them without video evidence?

• Why is motor racing the most popular sport?

Since when?

furious said:

• I’ve not viewed the video myself

I happened across a still from the video in a news story and straight away backed out of the page, thinking “I don’t want to see this.” I conciously make that choice often these days with the prevalence of tragedy being filmed by bystanders and the like. I don’t understand the need for news organisations to have to show the video at all. They don’t have faith in the written word, or don’t think we will believe them without video evidence?

I restrict my viewing to what I want to see. Which usually has more to do with how we humans can work out how to bring about a balance, since we are in the hot seat. Imbalance isn’t on my agenda.

furious said:

• Why is motor racing the most popular sport?

Since when?

apart from fooball where they want to see blood? motorsports have topped the list since it became a sport, almost.

• motorsports have topped the list since it became a sport, almost.

I’m going to have to ask for a reference on that I’m afraid…

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/man-jumps-from-building-after-crowd-below-cruelly-jeers-him-on/story-fnh81p7g-1227265921298

Another example, I mean WTF is wrong with people to even think about doing this and then filming it.

furious said:

• motorsports have topped the list since it became a sport, almost.

I’m going to have to ask for a reference on that I’m afraid…

Well, some people think so. I’m not actually one of them.

It seems others are more interested in other sports and the argument rages .

Cymek said:

WTF is wrong with people?

I dunno and clearly you don’t.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

WTF is wrong with people?

I dunno and clearly you don’t.

No I don’t

I always avoid that horrific stuff but yes, it’s becoming more common as shameless clickbait for the mainstream media outlets. The Daily Mail is a particularly predictable offender. Knowing that the media are happy to attract “readers” with this stuff – and that they probably do attract a lot of ostensibly normal people – tends to make the whole world look a bit more depressingly psycho every day.

• Well, some people think so. I’m not actually one of them.

You said it topped some “list” so it would be only fair if you were to produce a link to this list as evidence. Most lists I can find have soccer and cricket at the top, not particularly violent sports, and have no mention of motor sports at all…

Bubblecar said:

I always avoid that horrific stuff but yes, it’s becoming more common as shameless clickbait for the mainstream media outlets. The Daily Mail is a particularly predictable offender. Knowing that the media are happy to attract “readers” with this stuff – and that they probably do attract a lot of ostensibly normal people – tends to make the whole world look a bit more depressingly psycho every day.

Should we start mentioning the apocalypse yet?

furious said:

• Well, some people think so. I’m not actually one of them.

You said it topped some “list” so it would be only fair if you were to produce a link to this list as evidence. Most lists I can find have soccer and cricket at the top, not particularly violent sports, and have no mention of motor sports at all…

One of the oldest existing purpose-built automobile racing circuits in the United States, still in use, is the 2.5 mile (4.02 km)-long Indianapolis Motor Speedway in Speedway, Indiana, built from March to August 1909, when it first opened for racing. It is the largest capacity sports venue of any variety worldwide, with a top capacity of some 257,000+ seated spectators.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Why is motor racing the most popular sport?

Not because they want to be deafened by flashing glimpses.

They want to see the crash and burn.

Why? Why do you think that? Most people with that opinion simply aren’t interested in motor sport and therefore assume that’s the only reason people go. It is of course bullshit. People watch it for the same reason they watch any competitive sport. To quote a long time spectator “ I don’t want to see someone crash, I want to see him nearly crash” That means we want to see people driving right at the edge of their ability and the limits of the car/bike. That’s exciting. To assume ( and we all know about assumptions ) that crashes are the only interesting thing about motorsports is both ignorant and arrogant.

pommiejohn said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Why is motor racing the most popular sport?

Not because they want to be deafened by flashing glimpses.

They want to see the crash and burn.

Why? Why do you think that? Most people with that opinion simply aren’t interested in motor sport and therefore assume that’s the only reason people go. It is of course bullshit. People watch it for the same reason they watch any competitive sport. To quote a long time spectator “ I don’t want to see someone crash, I want to see him nearly crash” That means we want to see people driving right at the edge of their ability and the limits of the car/bike. That’s exciting. To assume ( and we all know about assumptions ) that crashes are the only interesting thing about motorsports is both ignorant and arrogant.

Well put sirrah. :) Clearly a true fan of the sport.

roughbarked said:

pommiejohn said:

roughbarked said:

Why is motor racing the most popular sport?

Not because they want to be deafened by flashing glimpses.

They want to see the crash and burn.

Why? Why do you think that? Most people with that opinion simply aren’t interested in motor sport and therefore assume that’s the only reason people go. It is of course bullshit. People watch it for the same reason they watch any competitive sport. To quote a long time spectator “ I don’t want to see someone crash, I want to see him nearly crash” That means we want to see people driving right at the edge of their ability and the limits of the car/bike. That’s exciting. To assume ( and we all know about assumptions ) that crashes are the only interesting thing about motorsports is both ignorant and arrogant.

Well put sirrah. :) Clearly a true fan of the sport.

I am, and proud of it :)

>That means we want to see people driving right at the edge of their ability and the limits of the car/bike. That’s exciting

while at it comment regard sport the wheeled sort’n thinkin’ sociology terms
bein’ as it thought models for behaviour in the larger world that story goes
notice motor sport’n nearly anything with wheels of breachin’ safe distances
regular entertainment, ideological influence’n maybe involve values’n status

yet good part of everything works well as it does because of operating space
out on the road why would it be any different’n between not involve distance
worth keep in mind how far back safe trailin’ establishin’ begins it no race
‘cause neglected equal safe brake distance’n same again plus some maybe case

pommiejohn said:

To assume ( and we all know about assumptions ) that crashes are the only interesting thing about motorsports is both ignorant and arrogant.

polite golf clap

transition said:

>That means we want to see people driving right at the edge of their ability and the limits of the car/bike. That’s exciting

while at it comment regard sport the wheeled sort’n thinkin’ sociology terms
bein’ as it thought models for behaviour in the larger world that story goes
notice motor sport’n nearly anything with wheels of breachin’ safe distances
regular entertainment, ideological influence’n maybe involve values’n status

yet good part of everything works well as it does because of operating space
out on the road why would it be any different’n between not involve distance
worth keep in mind how far back safe trailin’ establishin’ begins it no race
‘cause neglected equal safe brake distance’n same again plus some maybe case

To summarise.. Adrenalin.

transition said:

>That means we want to see people driving right at the edge of their ability and the limits of the car/bike. That’s exciting

while at it comment regard sport the wheeled sort’n thinkin’ sociology terms
bein’ as it thought models for behaviour in the larger world that story goes
notice motor sport’n nearly anything with wheels of breachin’ safe distances
regular entertainment, ideological influence’n maybe involve values’n status

yet good part of everything works well as it does because of operating space
out on the road why would it be any different’n between not involve distance
worth keep in mind how far back safe trailin’ establishin’ begins it no race
‘cause neglected equal safe brake distance’n same again plus some maybe case

?

pommiejohn said:

I am, and proud of it :)

but is it your favourite or most watched or most participated in, sport?

roughbarked said:

pommiejohn said:

I am, and proud of it :)

but is it your favourite or most watched or most participated in, sport?

Yep. I watched my first F1 race in 1970. I’ve seen ( live ) everyone from Jack Brabham to Schumacher, though I don’t go any more, too expensive.
I spend a few weekends each year racing ( competitively ) classic motorbikes.

• Sick voyeurism is it the new norm

Back to the subject:

Maybe it is the same thing in people that find entertainment value in gore movies and the like…

when the media say whatever’s gone “viral”, that sort of thing, and they quote each other too, they’re exploiting ‘contagion’, generally though they’re inflating and indulging, exaggerating, leading and overdetermining.

half the shit out there’s not very ‘popular’ at all, most people most of the time simply aren’t interested in the crap.

pommiejohn said:

roughbarked said:

pommiejohn said:

I am, and proud of it :)

but is it your favourite or most watched or most participated in, sport?

Yep. I watched my first F1 race in 1970. I’ve seen ( live ) everyone from Jack Brabham to Schumacher, though I don’t go any more, too expensive.
I spend a few weekends each year racing ( competitively ) classic motorbikes.

:)

furious said:

• Sick voyeurism is it the new norm

Back to the subject:

Maybe it is the same thing in people that find entertainment value in gore movies and the like…

Bugger! I was beginning to congratulate myself for successfully derailing a toxic topic.

• when the media say whatever’s gone “viral”

The media seriously over uses the term “viral” …

transition said:

when the media say whatever’s gone “viral”, that sort of thing, and they quote each other too, they’re exploiting ‘contagion’, generally though they’re inflating and indulging, exaggerating, leading and overdetermining.

half the shit out there’s not very ‘popular’ at all, most people most of the time simply aren’t interested in the crap.

yeah. It is all a beat up of some sort.

Frankenstein, Live in studio

furious said:

• Sick voyeurism is it the new norm

Back to the subject:

Maybe it is the same thing in people that find entertainment value in gore movies and the like…

Everyone should at least attempt to watch Deliverance, once. It could possibly put them off it forever?

furious said:

• when the media say whatever’s gone “viral”

The media seriously over uses the term “viral” …

The use of the word has gone viral.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

furious said:

• when the media say whatever’s gone “viral”

The media seriously over uses the term “viral” …

The use of the word has gone viral.

attempts a golf clap.

People have always been interested in the macabre, this isn’t anything new. In fact I would suggest that (western) society has actually drifted away from the most public forms of macabre entertainment to a point where is far less common than ever before – but obviously the pervasiveness of the internet means that there is a demand for all kinds of very weird and fucked up shit.

• The use of the word has gone viral.

The media will reach singularity if it ever gets to work “viral-gate” into an article heading…

diddly-squat said:

People have always been interested in the macabre, this isn’t anything new. In fact I would suggest that (western) society has actually drifted away from the most public forms of macabre entertainment to a point where is far less common than ever before – but obviously the pervasiveness of the internet means that there is a demand for all kinds of very weird and fucked up shit.

We are simply comig across people we would never otherwise have approached. I suppose it is in one way a good thing. Forewarned is always forearmed.

I don’t think there’s anything new about this kind of voyeurism at all. Consider executions in the middle ages: advertised for some time beforehand, they were attended by large crowds as entertainment. There’re stories of battles during the American Civil War in which civilians attended as spectators (eg The Battle of Bull Run, The Battle of Hampton Roads (a Naval battle)), or the Battle of Vittoria, in which the French military set up public viewing stands before the battle. While these are live events, gruesome voyeurism is illustrated by the popularity of (among others) Mathew Brady’s photographs of the American Civil War. There are many other examples, and since the development of moving-picture technology they seem to become even more graphic.

furious said:

• The use of the word has gone viral.

The media will reach singularity if it ever gets to work “viral-gate” into an article heading…

could that be termed an implosion?

Carmen_Sandiego said:

furious said:

• when the media say whatever’s gone “viral”

The media seriously over uses the term “viral” …

The use of the word has gone viral.

I think the term fits well within the context of it’s current meaning – it’s a common enough and straight forward metaphor.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

People have always been interested in the macabre, this isn’t anything new. In fact I would suggest that (western) society has actually drifted away from the most public forms of macabre entertainment to a point where is far less common than ever before – but obviously the pervasiveness of the internet means that there is a demand for all kinds of very weird and fucked up shit.

We are simply comig across people we would never otherwise have approached. I suppose it is in one way a good thing. Forewarned is always forearmed.

sorry, I don’t know what that is supposed to mean.

btm said:

I don’t think there’s anything new about this kind of voyeurism at all. Consider executions in the middle ages: advertised for some time beforehand, they were attended by large crowds as entertainment. There’re stories of battles during the American Civil War in which civilians attended as spectators (eg The Battle of Bull Run, The Battle of Hampton Roads (a Naval battle)), or the Battle of Vittoria, in which the French military set up public viewing stands before the battle. While these are live events, gruesome voyeurism is illustrated by the popularity of (among others) Mathew Brady’s photographs of the American Civil War. There are many other examples, and since the development of moving-picture technology they seem to become even more graphic.

Hung Drawn and Quartered would have no significance without spectators.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

People have always been interested in the macabre, this isn’t anything new. In fact I would suggest that (western) society has actually drifted away from the most public forms of macabre entertainment to a point where is far less common than ever before – but obviously the pervasiveness of the internet means that there is a demand for all kinds of very weird and fucked up shit.

We are simply comig across people we would never otherwise have approached. I suppose it is in one way a good thing. Forewarned is always forearmed.

sorry, I don’t know what that is supposed to mean.

So, do you attend dogfights?

diddly-squat said:

People have always been interested in the macabre, this isn’t anything new. In fact I would suggest that (western) society has actually drifted away from the most public forms of macabre entertainment to a point where is far less common than ever before – but obviously the pervasiveness of the internet means that there is a demand for all kinds of very weird and fucked up shit.

Perhaps but maybe the media it to blame by shoving it down out throats instead of those that want to view it actively going and looking for it as it’s buried in some obscure website.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

We are simply comig across people we would never otherwise have approached. I suppose it is in one way a good thing. Forewarned is always forearmed.

sorry, I don’t know what that is supposed to mean.

So, do you attend dogfights?

I’m sorry, I don’t know what that is supposed to mean.

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

People have always been interested in the macabre, this isn’t anything new. In fact I would suggest that (western) society has actually drifted away from the most public forms of macabre entertainment to a point where is far less common than ever before – but obviously the pervasiveness of the internet means that there is a demand for all kinds of very weird and fucked up shit.

Perhaps but maybe the media it to blame by shoving it down out throats instead of those that want to view it actively going and looking for it as it’s buried in some obscure website.

Some media has so little to report on that it makes jokes look like standard police reports.

On routine patrols, local police came upon two youths in the park. Upon observing their activities where one appeared to be drinking battery acid and the other swallowing firecrackers, police subsequently charged one and let the other off.

Cymek said:

Perhaps but maybe the media it to blame by shoving it down out throats instead of those that want to view it actively going and looking for it as it’s buried in some obscure website.

Or perhaps the people who so avidly consume the sensationalism the media are pushing on us are driving the direction the media are heading, by actually consuming so much of the stuff. After all, the purpose of the media organisations is not to get the truth to the people, but to make money.

I admit I watch graphic violent tv shows, but I know its entertainment and no one is actually dying. Real life is often not pleasant so I am not sure why people would want to seek out real life deaths in society, war footage is perhaps different as you expect people to die in armed conflicts, but seriously what attraction is their in seeing a little kid falling to his death in a kite accident

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

People have always been interested in the macabre, this isn’t anything new. In fact I would suggest that (western) society has actually drifted away from the most public forms of macabre entertainment to a point where is far less common than ever before – but obviously the pervasiveness of the internet means that there is a demand for all kinds of very weird and fucked up shit.

Perhaps but maybe the media it to blame by shoving it down out throats instead of those that want to view it actively going and looking for it as it’s buried in some obscure website.

what do you mean, ‘shoving it down our throats’? We’ve got more choice now in regards to media consumption than ever before…

if you don’t want to see something, or don’t agree with the POV of a particular media outlet then all you need to do to ‘vote with your feet’ (so to speak)

Cymek said:

I admit I watch graphic violent tv shows, but I know its entertainment and no one is actually dying. Real life is often not pleasant so I am not sure why people would want to seek out real life deaths in society, war footage is perhaps different as you expect people to die in armed conflicts, but seriously what attraction is their in seeing a little kid falling to his death in a kite accident

I remember having to forcefully intervene on my son’s fear and remind him that it was only television when he was very young. He’s almost 40 now and he’s still into death metal.

diddly-squat said:

if you don’t want to see something, or don’t agree with the POV of a particular media outlet then all you need to do to ‘vote with your feet’ (so to speak)

Nobody uses their feet. Most devices require the mobile clicker these days.. Talk about loungechair mountaineers.

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

People have always been interested in the macabre, this isn’t anything new. In fact I would suggest that (western) society has actually drifted away from the most public forms of macabre entertainment to a point where is far less common than ever before – but obviously the pervasiveness of the internet means that there is a demand for all kinds of very weird and fucked up shit.

Perhaps but maybe the media it to blame by shoving it down out throats instead of those that want to view it actively going and looking for it as it’s buried in some obscure website.

what do you mean, ‘shoving it down our throats’? We’ve got more choice now in regards to media consumption than ever before…

if you don’t want to see something, or don’t agree with the POV of a particular media outlet then all you need to do to ‘vote with your feet’ (so to speak)

By making it mainstream news on the front page of a website, why not report the story sans video footage. Yes you don’t have to click on it or even view that particular website but why show it in the first place.

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps but maybe the media it to blame by shoving it down out throats instead of those that want to view it actively going and looking for it as it’s buried in some obscure website.

what do you mean, ‘shoving it down our throats’? We’ve got more choice now in regards to media consumption than ever before…

if you don’t want to see something, or don’t agree with the POV of a particular media outlet then all you need to do to ‘vote with your feet’ (so to speak)

By making it mainstream news on the front page of a website, why not report the story sans video footage. Yes you don’t have to click on it or even view that particular website but why show it in the first place.

This is why I use the NoScript add on and other devices to avoid stuff going down my throat unwittingly.

Perhaps I am just bitching but its seems society is becoming a world were no one minds their own business over events that have nothing to do with them and lets film anything and everything no matter how terrible it is in the hope we become an internet sensation. Thats the nature of the internet though the good and the bad.

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps but maybe the media it to blame by shoving it down out throats instead of those that want to view it actively going and looking for it as it’s buried in some obscure website.

what do you mean, ‘shoving it down our throats’? We’ve got more choice now in regards to media consumption than ever before…

if you don’t want to see something, or don’t agree with the POV of a particular media outlet then all you need to do to ‘vote with your feet’ (so to speak)

By making it mainstream news on the front page of a website, why not report the story sans video footage. Yes you don’t have to click on it or even view that particular website but why show it in the first place.

because some people are interested in seeing it…

• By making it mainstream news on the front page of a website, why not report the story sans video footage.

Like I said in an earlier post, it is like they think that we won’t believe them without them providing the actual footage…

Cymek said:

Perhaps I am just bitching but it seems society is becoming a world were no one minds their own business over events that have nothing to do with them andallows others to film anything and everything no matter how terrible it is in the hope we become an internet sensation. That’s the nature of the internet through the good and the bad.

Improved your post slightly.

Evolution is what it is.

• because some people are interested in seeing it

And it is easy enough to find should they want too…

furious said:

• By making it mainstream news on the front page of a website, why not report the story sans video footage.

Like I said in an earlier post, it is like they think that we won’t believe them without them providing the actual footage…

It is like that for the reason you put, perhaps to you and me but as diddly put it, it is because some want to see it and that the media deems that enough of a majority will be shock and awed into wanting to watch more.

furious said:

• because some people are interested in seeing it

And it is easy enough to find should they want too…

All true.

it’s 90+% junk, junk, junk, junk, junk
nasty junk, piontless junk

furious said:

• Sick voyeurism is it the new norm

no it’s not. People used to gather from far and wide to see public hangings. It was a thing.

The TV stations played the planes hitting the twin towers over and over and over again. Thousands took photos. Hundreds upon hundreds of them were published in respectable magazines.. I still have a copy of the Time mag with the ‘windows to the world’ restaurant worker falling head first. People watched many time the deaths of nearly 3 thousand people that day and in the weeks/ months/ years following.
This is not a new thing.. what’s new is the accessibility to unedited footage. No censor on you iphone app to be had.

furious said:

• By making it mainstream news on the front page of a website, why not report the story sans video footage.

Like I said in an earlier post, it is like they think that we won’t believe them without them providing the actual footage…

pics or it didn’t happen

>People watched many time the deaths of nearly 3 thousand people that day and in the weeks/ months/ years following….
…..This is not a new thing.. what’s new is the accessibility to unedited footage. No censor on you iphone app to be had”

nope, they were watching the TV etc.

Arts said:

furious said:

• By making it mainstream news on the front page of a website, why not report the story sans video footage.

Like I said in an earlier post, it is like they think that we won’t believe them without them providing the actual footage…

pics or it didn’t happen

lucky no one ever went to a bottle shop with their dress tucked into their nickers then…

• I still have a copy of the Time mag with the ‘windows to the world’ restaurant worker falling head first.

Do you have the one of him hitting the ground?

furious said:

• I still have a copy of the Time mag with the ‘windows to the world’ restaurant worker falling head first.

Do you have the one of him hitting the ground?

you might have to go to bestgore.com or gruesomephotos or pinterest for those

to be fair, I watched the video from the OP, and it doesn’t actually show the child hitting the ground, just being pulled up into the air. But I have noticed many more “Warning – Graphic contents” labels on stories.

• you might have to go to bestgore.com or gruesomephotos or pinterest for those

I actually don’t know if these pictures exist but if they did, no doubt you could find them if you wanted. That’s kind of the point, we don’t need to see the moment of death to hear/read about a story…

Arts said:

furious said:

• Sick voyeurism is it the new norm

no it’s not. People used to gather from far and wide to see public hangings. It was a thing.

The TV stations played the planes hitting the twin towers over and over and over again. Thousands took photos. Hundreds upon hundreds of them were published in respectable magazines.. I still have a copy of the Time mag with the ‘windows to the world’ restaurant worker falling head first. People watched many time the deaths of nearly 3 thousand people that day and in the weeks/ months/ years following.
This is not a new thing.. what’s new is the accessibility to unedited footage. No censor on you iphone app to be had.

Did you not think at some point it just became distasteful, it seems they used the revolving footage of it to keep viewers

While in Indonesia a couple of years back, I drove past the large crowd gathering to watch the public spectacle of a thief getting his hand chopped off. Many people have evolved beyond our barbaric past, many haven’t.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

While in Indonesia a couple of years back, I drove past the large crowd gathering to watch the public spectacle of a thief getting his hand chopped off. Many people have evolved beyond our barbaric past, many haven’t.

In Jeddah, every Friday they fence off the main square in town to lock the people there, then the beheadings are done. The public can’t get out and are virtually forced to watch.

• The public can’t get out and are virtually forced to watch

If it happens every Friday at the same time I expect if you didn’t want to be there it wouldn’t be too hard not to be…

furious said:

• The public can’t get out and are virtually forced to watch

If it happens every Friday at the same time I expect if you didn’t want to be there it wouldn’t be too hard not to be…

True. They don’t have a lot of tourists because the place is such a shitheap.

furious said:

• The public can’t get out and are virtually forced to watch

If it happens every Friday at the same time I expect if you didn’t want to be there it wouldn’t be too hard not to be…

note to self – don’t miss the bus on friday

Cymek said:

Arts said:

furious said:

• Sick voyeurism is it the new norm

no it’s not. People used to gather from far and wide to see public hangings. It was a thing.

The TV stations played the planes hitting the twin towers over and over and over again. Thousands took photos. Hundreds upon hundreds of them were published in respectable magazines.. I still have a copy of the Time mag with the ‘windows to the world’ restaurant worker falling head first. People watched many time the deaths of nearly 3 thousand people that day and in the weeks/ months/ years following.
This is not a new thing.. what’s new is the accessibility to unedited footage. No censor on you iphone app to be had.

Did you not think at some point it just became distasteful, it seems they used the revolving footage of it to keep viewers

I think, at first, the news was just so big and unbelievable, people were just mesmerised. Most of them wouldn’t opt to watch a public hanging, I suspect.

I noticed that most of the repeated footage is quite tame.. that morning on Colorado TV, they showed very graphic things (they were live, of course, so not much time for editing), including a reporter near the base of the towers who was talking about how he keeps hearing sporadic ‘thump, thump’ sounds and wondering what it was… it took about twelve more seconds before he realised, his face went pale and the footage cut out… I have never seen that cross again, though they did replay others for that day in the following days. it was a weird time, probably not the best example for this thread

The point is that within most people’s experience, such horrific events are actually rare, and we expect to feel appropriately traumatised if we witness them. But modern technology means that we can witness an unending number of such events, every day. Those who choose to click on the horrible videos soon become desensitised. Those of us who don’t want to become blasé about human suffering deliberately avoid clicking on such stuff.

>….means that we can witness an unending number of such events, every day

are you talking about things that have happened, or things as they are happening, or/and does what you’re saying highlight some prevalent confusion regards the two different things.

maybe clarify and qualify “witness” also regards how you’re employing that term.

Bubblecar said:

The point is that within most people’s experience, such horrific events are actually rare, and we expect to feel appropriately traumatised if we witness them. But modern technology means that we can witness an unending number of such events, every day. Those who choose to click on the horrible videos soon become desensitised. Those of us who don’t want to become blasé about human suffering deliberately avoid clicking on such stuff.

I reckon it’s probably easier to watch this stuff on film when you are sitting at your desk, than in real life.. no matter how ‘desensitised’ one thinks they might be

Bubblecar said:

The point is that within most people’s experience, such horrific events are actually rare, and we expect to feel appropriately traumatised if we witness them. But modern technology means that we can witness an unending number of such events, every day. Those who choose to click on the horrible videos soon become desensitised. Those of us who don’t want to become blasé about human suffering deliberately avoid clicking on such stuff.

I was thinking the same thing, we shouldn’t become desensitised to human suffering as our empathy for the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it is a core part of what it means to be human.

generally ‘witness’ means something like as follows

….to personally hear, see or know by presence or perception

worth the watch …

Nightcrawler (2014)

When Lou Bloom, a driven man desperate for work, muscles into the world of L.A. crime journalism, he blurs the line between observer and participant to become the star of his own story.

furious said:

• The public can’t get out and are virtually forced to watch

If it happens every Friday at the same time I expect if you didn’t want to be there it wouldn’t be too hard not to be…

It’s outside the mosque after Friday prayers.

Probably of the modern environment individuals are denied to some extent normal non-intrigue-like observations of each others goings on in many ways (self-imposed shutting away of selves in our homes comes to mind – that privacy), further things like TV and social media didn’t exist in the EoEA/ancestral environments, so doubtful there’re cognitive tools evolved/adapted for that sort of job.

I don’t see media are greatly about distinguishing propositional content used in language from intention often, for example. Add TV/movies/media their power to artfully put together and control the correspondence of the senses of the material being presented – and training expectations related in their audience – short of delving sensory input processing down to the level of mechanisms in the context of evolutionary history and more, but jesus christ what sort of journey is that.

When you’re on the run from the Old Bill you travel to some pretty unsavoury places, mix with some pretty unsavoury chaps and eat some pretty unsavoury food and see some pretty unsavoury things.

and be careful you dont run into Machine Gun Woman,