DescentBB

im·me·di·a·cy (-md--s)
n. pl. im·me·di·a·cies
1. The condition or quality of being immediate.
2. Lack of an intervening or mediating agency; directness: the immediacy of live television coverage.
3. Something immediate, as in importance.

Maybe it isn't as important as 911 coverage.

Heretic wrote:

Spidey wrote:He was making a valid counter point, you were making an irrelevant point.

Yea what he said.

Boy that's some evidence you got there. Must be true.

Aw come on I seen you troll better than that.

Heretic wrote:Maybe it isn't as important as 911 coverage.

Why not?

null0010 wrote:

Heretic wrote:Maybe it isn't as important as 911 coverage.

Why not?

Because business as usual isn't news worthy. Ethnic cleansing in Africa? It'll be news worthy when it stops, not when its happening.

People can grow desensitized / accustomed to just about anything.

The answer should be obvious. Most people care about what affects them and theirs. It's no giant leap to come to the conclusion that violence in Africa that doesn't involve American interests or citizens flies in under most American's radar. Not to say that it's right, I'm just saying.

As far as the tsunami in Indonesia and the earthquake in Haiti goes. Americans were the first to arrive and lend assistance in both cases. Now it's up to you to figure out why that was the case.

AlphaDoG wrote:As far as the tsunami in Indonesia and the earthquake in Haiti goes. Americans were the first to arrive and lend assistance in both cases. Now it's up to you to figure out why that was the case.

The answer to that is not really relevant (though it's simple: we have the money to burn). I'm asking why no one seems to care now, not then.

Heretic wrote:Aw come on I seen you troll better than that.

Are you going to continue to derail the topic with these vagaries, or are you going to pony up and state in no uncertain terms what you're implying?

Much more on-topic, the combination of "halfway around the world" and "happened a few years ago" is the perfect breeding ground for apathy. It's sort of an unfortunate part of the human condition: if a tragedy doesn't directly affect us or people we know, it doesn't have long-term staying power in our minds. I know I find myself falling into that same trap all the time, and I like to think that I do a somewhat better job on keeping on top of events than your average Joe. I'm not really sure there's an easy solution to it.

What calling you a troll isn't ponying up? As far as I seen you and NUll have derailed this topic first.

Null's original post was very much in-line with the topic of the thread. He stated that he feels the annual coverage of the event's anniversary has become overblown, especially when there are far deadlier incidents occurring in the world on a yearly basis that get little to no coverage in the US. How is that not a valid point to make?

I call BS on that one…you are watching the wrong news…the news I watch, tonight ran a story about the gang rapes in the Congo.

And, the Pakistan floods were covered for weeks.

ETC.

………………………..

You know, if you were to worry about every tragedy that takes place everywhere in the world, and stay on those issues indefinitely…you would never be able to function.

I like Anime…and there is a great saying in Japan…that goes something to the effect (paraphrase) “the ability to stay sane is directly tied to the ability to forget”.

So you must pick and choose…or go nuts?

You know…like…tragedy…overload.

Spidey wrote:there is a great saying in Japan…that goes something to the effect (paraphrase) “the ability to stay sane is directly tied to the ability to forget”.

So why do we subject ourselves to a tragic remembrance of a horrific day every year?

null0010 wrote:

Spidey wrote:there is a great saying in Japan…that goes something to the effect (paraphrase) “the ability to stay sane is directly tied to the ability to forget”.

So why do we subject ourselves to a tragic remembrance of a horrific day every year?

Everyone will let it go when it feels right to them. You telling them they need to do it on your timetable is no different than them telling you to never forget it...

Yes let's forget about it, while the death toll is still raising. It doesn't matter to talk about in the media. They sure don't mention the 10,000 or so people suffering from lung problems or from the toxic dust. So just forget it happen right.

more than 10,000 Ground Zero workers - known as \"first responders\" - who are suffering from serious and even fatal illnesses after inhaling the toxic dust cloud caused by the crumbling towers.

Yes these heroes need us to forget about the attack so everyone can sweep them under the rug.

They are the forgotten victims of the 9/11 tragedy, still fighting for justice and compensation.

Will these victims get counted in the final death toll?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fe ... soned.html



http://www.asbestosnews.com/news/new-yo ... -exposure/

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010891288

To me 911 is still an open wound, there isn’t even a scab on it yet.

It’s an un-resolved issue…it mocks me...it tasks me.

No, I never said \"forget about it,\" I said, \"let's stop having a mini sweeps week every September 11th, parading around our tragedy like some badge of honor.\"

There's a difference between yelling \"Never forget!\" and helping victims families or first responders.

null0010 wrote:No

Lol, did you just accuse Heretic of doing exactly what you and TG have been doing this entire thread?

You’re too much.

Spidey wrote:Lol, did you just accuse Heretic of doing exactly what you and TG have been doing this entire thread?

You’re too much.

you're joking, right?

null0010 wrote:No, I never said "forget about it," I said, "let's stop having a mini sweeps week every September 11th, parading around our tragedy like some badge of honor."

There's a difference between yelling "Never forget!" and helping victims families or first responders.

Actually you said you were tired of hearing about it and we should get over it. What do you want? Some kind of a don't ask don't tell policy? We can think about it but don't do it in public so it doesn't bother you?

Appeal to emotion for the starving but not the dead and dying from terrorist attack. Seems one side don't you think?

Guys, come on.

If you object to the 9/11 coverage, get over it.

If you think less of someone for objecting, get over it.

Best statement in this thread:

Will Robinson wrote:Everyone will let it go when it feels right to them.

The coverage is driven by viewership. People who want to see it will watch, people who don't want to see it won't; the coverage will rise and fall accordingly.

-------

From my own experience in Oklahoma City (where I grew up, and my hometown until recently), here's what will probably happen:

The coverage surrounding the 10th anniversary of the event will be comparable to the coverage of the 2nd year or so, but then it will drop off fairly quickly.

Spidey wrote:

null0010 wrote:No

Lol, did you just accuse Heretic of doing exactly what you and TG have been doing this entire thread?

You’re too much.

I was attempting to appeal to reason by using the arguement: "if, 9 years later, we mourn the death of 3000, then..."

And I seem to be being countered by, "no, those weren't Americans," (which is perfectly understandable due to the proximity rule of journalism) plus an appeal to emotion, attempting to make me look callous (which was never my intent by bringing up starvation deaths, etc) by bringing up people who have become sick for attempting to help in the rescue efforts, and acting as if I had not a care in the world for them.

Wasn't you attempting to make everyone here look self centered and callous towards the starving populations? Why else would you bring up the subject of the masses of people dying from hunger in a topic about 911 coverage?

Heretic, I thought it was pretty clear that he was talking about the reasons for the disparity in media coverage. Seems pretty on-topic to me.

How is it off topic from this reply? Mister Moderator.

null0010 wrote:And I seem to be being countered by, "no, those weren't Americans," (which is perfectly understandable due to the proximity rule of journalism) plus an appeal to emotion, attempting to make me look callous (which was never my intent by bringing up starvation deaths, etc) by bringing up people who have become sick for attempting to help in the rescue efforts, and acting as if I had not a care in the world for them.

Heretic wrote:How is it off topic from this reply?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I never said it was off-topic.

---------

Personally, I think the "how can you not care about ____?!" arguments in here are pointless.

(Yes, that includes Null's original appeal to international tragedies, and Heretic's couter-appeal to ongoing 9/11 rescuer illness.)

How much someone cares about X implies nothing about how much they care about Y.

And stating that one cares more about X does not imply they don't care about Y.

Heretic wrote:Appeal to emotion for the starving but not the dead and dying from terrorist attack. Seems one side don't you think?

I don't know, Dr. SpinMaster, you tell me.

Top Gun wrote:

Heretic wrote:Appeal to emotion for the starving but not the dead and dying from terrorist attack. Seems one side don't you think?

I don't know, Dr. SpinMaster, you tell me.

...you go out of your way to make that, and I'm the one with a problem? Boy, you need some professional help.

What do you mean by boy? Is that some kind of racial slur?

I'll be the first to admit I'm a little unhinged but it's normal for man to be a little unhinged.

a little?

come on, it's time you started being honest with us heretic.

How can you type with those fingernails?

i'm thinking he's somehow typing that with his tongue.

Ferno wrote:i'm thinking he's somehow typing that with his tongue.

ith hard to type lyke thith, an the keyth don't tathte bery good

Heretic wrote:What do you mean by boy? Is that some kind of racial slur?

lulz

Heretic wrote:What do you mean by boy? Is that some kind of racial slur?

Top Gun is racist against people whose posts are in blue font.

-----

On topic: I don't own a TV, and didn't choose to consume any 9/11 images or coverage this year. I'm just not that interested. Haven't been for 5 years or so.

Who needs a TV, all you need to know is here.

I've come up with a new 9/11 conspiracy counter-theory:

it was Mexicans, trying to steal our jobs.

Lothar wrote:I've come up with a new 9/11 conspiracy counter-theory:

it was Mexicans, trying to steal our jobs.

I knew it!

Grendel wrote:Who needs a TV, all you need to know is here.

Christ, those are awful.

Top Gun wrote:

Grendel wrote:Who needs a TV, all you need to know is here.

Christ, those are awful.

I have a bunch of the "deliberately offensive" ones already. Hmm.