Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I first posted the following on the "Tiny Little Things That Cause You Irrational Rage". However, it was suggested that this was neither a "Tiny Little Thing" nor was it "irrational". So here it is on a new thread:


People who feel that it's right to share on Facebook etc horrific photos of people in war zones such as Gaza with their faces blown off or lying in bits and pieces. I've had to "unfriend" someone who did this the other day.


This is insulting to the relatives and friends of the victim who probably didn't give permission for this and who will probably be horrified to have the photo spread throughout social media. It is also insulting to compassionate and adult people who will probably agree with the poster that the conflict that led to the photo is awful but who are savvy enough to know that, unlike in a computer game, a body that is hit by a bomb doesn't just fall over and lie there but is likely to be blown to pieces. We can use our imagination and have got past the stage of accepting that when Jerry the Mouse flattens Tom with a frying pan, Tom will re-emerge totally unscathed in the next scene.


In fact I would go further and call it atrocity porn.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I first posted the following on the "Tiny Little

> Things That Cause You Irrational Rage". However,

> it was suggested that this was neither a "Tiny

> Little Thing" nor was it "irrational". So here it

> is on a new thread:

>

> People who feel that it's right to share on

> Facebook etc horrific photos of people in war

> zones such as Gaza with their faces blown off or

> lying in bits and pieces. I've had to "unfriend"

> someone who did this the other day.

>

> This is insulting to the relatives and friends of

> the victim who probably didn't give permission for

> this and who will probably be horrified to have

> the photo spread throughout social media. It is

> also insulting to compassionate and adult people

> who will probably agree with the poster that the

> conflict that led to the photo is awful but who

> are savvy enough to know that, unlike in a

> computer game, a body that is hit by a bomb

> doesn't just fall over and lie there but is likely

> to be blown to pieces. We can use our imagination

> and have got past the stage of accepting that when

> Jerry the Mouse flattens Tom with a frying pan,

> Tom will re-emerge totally unscathed in the next

> scene.

>

> In fact I would go further and call it atrocity

> porn.



I see your point, but I wonder if we're a bit sensitive here. I was leafing through a Fremch magazine on a flight last year and there were koads of graphic photos like you describe, and others of women hanged by extremists and stuff. I don't know, bit I suspect these magazines don't seek permission to use the images.


There is also the argument that the harsh reality of it on social media will force the world to take notice of of what is going on (especially Americans).


I don't like to see them but I'm not sure where I stand on it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Unless we don't fly I don't think we can be too critical of the authorities.  
    • In 2016 London City Airport began using concentrated flight paths. When there's a predominantly westerly wind, incoming aircraft approach from East London (north of the River). When there's a predominantly Easterly wind, incoming aircraft approach the airport from the West: circling through Forest Hill, Dulwich, Vauxhall, Tower Hamlets, Docklands. This latter flight path affects many of us in South East London. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/london-city-airport-concentrated-flight-paths The planes going into City are often below 2,000 ft, so very noisy. Sometimes we have incoming Heathrow at the same time, flying higher. The early flights that I hear e.g. 04:30 are incoming to Heathrow. They are scheduled to land at 05:30 but are 'early'. Apparently the government allows a percentage of flights to arrive early and late (but these are now established as regular occurrences, informally part of the schedule). IMHO Londoners are getting very poor political representation on this issue. Incredible that if you want to complain about aircraft noise, you're supposed to contact the airport concerned! Preposterous and designed solely in favour of aviation expansion.
    • Yet another recommendation for Jafar. Such a nice guy, really reliable and fair. He fixed a problem with our boiler and then incredibly kindly made two more visits to replace a different part at no extra cost. 
    • I didn't have any problems with plane noise until city airport started flying planes to and from about 5-8 minutes apart from 5.30 am or  6 am,  and even with ear plugs and double glazing I am woken at about 6 well before I usually would wake  up. I have lived here since 1986 and it is relatively recently that the planes have been flying far too low over East dulwich. I very much doubt that they are headinbg to Heathrow or from Heathrow. As the crow flies we are much , MUCH closer to City Airport than Heathrow or Gatwick. I even saw one flying so low you could see all the windows, when I was in Peckham Rye Park.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...