Master Virgo wrote:

prince0gotham wrote:The point isn't to facepalm someone about how he doesn't pay as much attention to how people are dying in another part of the world. It's to analyse what's wrong with the media, how people create media, how people react to media, how that reaction then governs what's required from it and so on and so on. Go ahead and blame hypocrites for being hypocrites instead of blaming the monster and environment that they'er a victim to one way or another.

Once out in the media one just can't not take a thing like this seriously. Which is why this probably shouldn't have gone worldwide-public in the first place.

This is not about the media, this is about people. Let's face it, people can prevent a lot of deaths by donating and helping others who are suffering from hunger and sickness. Do you know why they don't? It's simple, they don't care. It's not even about not having enough money or cruelty towards others. They simply don't want to know.

So when I see one of them saying I'm so sorry for someone who just died and I didn't even know him, I just say: Nonsense, it's just you trying to make yourself feel good. Nothing more.

DoctorDonna wrote:There is a difference between what happened in that movie theater and people dying in Africa. If you say that people die everyday in Africa, it becomes a statistic. Don't get me wrong that is still tragic, but we know its going to happen.

So you mean if from now on everyday several people get shot and die in movie theaters by different psychos, it becomes normal and we should stop caring about it as much as we do now?

And the truth is, this event is important because nobody there should have died that day.

None of the 500 African kids who just died in the last 30 minutes that we were talking should have either. But they did, because other people decided they should.

Well if that happened everyday for fifty years, theoretically people would stop caring. When something terrible becomes normal people stop caring too much about it. Its unfortunate, but true.

I heard a man died for his friend and his friend's wife. This is pretty emotional. The couple got married and their friend took a bullet for them. But nothing is worse than the "birthday" story.

Heartwarming:

"I just want to finish it, and for all those men, women and children that didn't get to finish it, I want to finish it for them," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/m ... ories.html

You don't get it. It IS about the media. Everything's about the media. Did you see the video I posted? Are you ignorrant about the extent to which media governs hyperreality, which then governs internet (as a part of the media), which then governs people's views and understandings and also motives and interests? People react to whatever's given to them, most of the times even exponentially like in this case.

Everyone knows about this incident for several reasons:

1. Everyone knows about TDKR. Why? Because of media.
2. Because it was immedeately and of course inevitably seen as just the new thing every media source was supposed to inform about for days and probably weeks. Media.
3. Everyone can relate to going to a cinema because everyone does so. Why? Because everyone loves movies. Movies are something of a medium. Similarly I gave an example about the lion and you missed that. You can't compare the state of shock about death in Africa with the state of shock of date put into every-day-context. Circumstance really IS a big part of any reaction. Similarly you're inevitably going to be way more fearful of the sudden realization about whether your life is in danger than you ever will be if you find out someone else is. Let alone in Africa. So you can't judge that like that. All that is another reason why you're bollocks about people expressing shock on this topic just to make themselves feel better. No, everyone's actually genuinely (even if selfishly) afraid that he might go to a screening and get his head blown off. SO you're wrong about that too.

It's all about media. You can't blame everyone for not being completely conscious when it comes to reaction to media. I mean ofc you can, but then you can't say "it's not about the media" when it's clearly all about the media. Even when KONY happened it was all about the media and not about "oh, it seems people are starting to care about children in Africa!!!".

Prince I'm not talking about the shock. Of course it is more shocking to see people dies in theaters than seeing them die in a war. Who would've argue with that. But it is not more sad.

What you are saying is totally about media, but what I'm saying is not. People who don't know about horrible events which are happening in this world and never cared to know only have themselves to blame. You can't take them seriously when they sympathize with victims of some events when they did nothing to prevent a lot of other horrible events.

Socially and psychologically speaking - yes. If cinemas start becomming associated with shootouts and terrorist attacks people will eventually get used to that fact and will probably stop going to the cinemas. Then they'll have nothing to fear. He wasn't even saying that the circumstance of recurrence makes death better than it is or something that one should accept. He's saying that it's just natural for the human brain to get accustomed to the thought and not react to it on a biochemical level. Also, most of the reasons why people care about death in Africa or anywhere is tied to the fact of how peopl are (again) selfish (even though it's completely natural and instinctive for them to be so) because a considerable amount of shock and sympathy comes out of the act of one putting himself into another man's shoes. So you got that too.

I'm not saying whether people would do it or not. Terror in the city would become normal of course. But people dying would never get normal, ever. It's always as horrible if not more. No matter if people start to care less or not.

You're missing the point again. The Africa context suggests a lot of people dying. The "Going to the cinema" context doesn't.

Prince I actually agree with a lot of your points, because you are not proving me wrong at all. You're talking about what's natural or not and how people would react, I'm talking about what's right and wrong and how people should react.

I'm saying it's understandable that this subject gets a lot of attention because it was really unexpected, but people who died didn't deserve any more sympathy than people who are dying in far greater numbers in some other corners of this world.

When some famous actor dies people all say "R.I.P" "He was such great actor" or "What a sad event". But that's not sad compared to the fact that a lot of others are dying and you (I mean people in general) could've done something about it and you didn't. And you managed to do that without feeling even a little bit bad about yourself, and that's the most horrifying thing about this whole thing.

SchmittyThePirate wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/m ... ories.html

Warner Brothers will not report "The Dark Knight Rises" box office results this weekend "out of respect for the victims and their families," according to a statement. Box office numbers will instead be released on Monday.

You can't take them seriously when they sympathize with victims of some events when they did nothing to prevent a lot of other horrible events.

By the logic implied here:

1. You can't take anyone seriously.
2. You can only take those people seriously that have done some charity work? Whut?


I already told you one major reason why most people are indeed genuinely shocked by this and you tell me to not take seriously what... their shock or their sympathy? Their sympathy comes out of that shock, that's what sympathy comes out of in almost all cases. It takes you putting yourself in the place of the victim which then results in shock which then results in sympathy. I already explained why this is so shocking (because it's in every-day-context). You can't deny that shock and if you can't deny the shock you also can't deny the sympathy because it's almost inevitable once one gets shocked by the event. From that point on any hypocricy talk is completely unnecessary.

I'm not saying whether people would do it or not. Terror in the city would become normal of course. But people dying would never get normal, ever. It's always as horrible if not more. No matter if people start to care less or not.

That's the thing. You assumed that people thought and said that death in cinemas is worse than death 15000 miles away. It's not, it's just inevitable to be way more relevant unless some other factor narrows the relevance and counters the 'distance' factor.

It's your fault that you assumed this and then started this debate, it's also your fault to talk about hypocricy instead of media perversion.

When some famous actor dies people all say "R.I.P" "He was such great actor" or "What a sad event". But that's not sad compared to the fact that a lot of others are dying

Measuring importance of sadness about death down to numbers and proportions has always been the wrong thing to do. You're now involving circumstances like statistics and denying circumstances like every-day relevance and personal attachment. How is that right? Or is it just to condemn the hypocrites, which you shouldn't have done in the first place? Talks about hypocricy are pointless and empty, unless you didn't start it and are not the accuser.

17 year olds being sad about Elvis dying is what I'd call stupid. You walking in here and saying that thing back there was silly as hell too. A poorly timed and poorly presented attempt at a statement that anyone can make but you being the one that posted it made it even worse.

I hope they don't pull this part out of Gangster Squad because of this event, I'm looking forward to this scene.

Dodd wrote:I hope they don't pull this part out of Gangster Squad because of this event, I'm looking forward to this scene.

They'll either bump up the rating of it or remove it completely. And you should go fuck yourself too.

French fans during the Premiere tonight at Paris (the movie will come the 25th July on Europe) were sad about what happen in Denver.

I wasn't here (i wait for the 25 ^^!) but a friend told me that they made quiet for a minute (sorry for my english -_- ) for the victilms.
Also on BFMTV (our CNN ^^" ) a french fan said after the movie that:

"obiously, the fact that this tragedy happen and touch THIS movie is a sign. I don't know if this crazy guy did that because of the movie, but, the theme of the trilogy, the story, what all of Nolan's Batman is about...many people are saying that the BO will down because of that tragedy. I think it will have an opposite fact: this movie is about fighting in our society against those people. This movie will touch people because this movie will touch the reality of what happen on our world!"



So i don't know what the Nolan Fans are think about that...

There is zero excuse whatsoever for allowing some random kid to have an AR15, a 100-round magazine and 6,000 rounds. That's not a self-defense or hunting gun. That's a murder machine, no different from high-grade explosives or military grade anthrax. There's just no excuse for allowing a random civilian to have access to that kind of firepower.

Sorry for the rant, I've been watching too much news and reading too many idiots on the Colorado tragedy--like the one who tried to argue that movies are the problem, not better gun laws. I was going to try and call in and explain that The Dark Knight Rises is actually anti-violence, in the sense that Batman is trying to stop the violence created by the bad guys. But then I realized that the critic had already decided that movies like TDK and TDKR are "bad."