Are we becoming a bit desensitized?

W

Warbler

At the Start
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
8,493
About 18 months ISIS influenced terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo. It caused much comment on this forum at the time. Europe's political leaders hot footed it to Paris for a weekend show of solidarity, and the French turned out in force.

Since then we've seen attacks in Paris and Brussels, and they too sparked comment.

More recently we've seen attacks in Nice, Florida, Germany and today in Normandy a priest had his throat cut. Now I realise this is an esteemed horse racing forum, and I'd certainly accept that there reaches a point where you just end up providing a repetative commentary regarding the soup of the day otherwise, obviously you exhaust things eventually and reach a point where what more can you say afterall? But I was just wondering if the lack of reaction is the first signs that perhaps we're just starting to view these attacks as everyday occurances now? That's not to say we don't care, just that they're becoming so common place now they start to lose their shock value
 
I think the 'desensitized' argument is basically just leftie, what-if, navel-gazing, toss-pottery.

Your initial inclinations are right, imo. People feel and think the same after these outrages, but there's only so many times you can express it on social media, before you figure the penny should have dropped with your Friends/Followers/Groupies/Pimps.

If someone doesn't feel outrage/despair/compassion (perm any of the above) whenever one of these heinous acts are perpetrated, then there is probably a little something wrong with them, tbh.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking that today until I got back from the gym, turned on the news and heard about the priest. Not so much feeling desensitised these days but shocked to the point of numbness [unless that amounts to the same thing].
 
I blame Icebreaker for flouncing off in a huff when he couldn't take what he was dishing out. He was a lock to come on with some hand-wringing, gnashing of teeth and general wailing, before screaming for the complete destruction of islam and calling anyone who disagreed with him an anti-Semite (completely missing the meaning of semite in the process).
 
Grasshopper said:
I think the 'desensitized' argument is basically just leftie, what-if, navel-gazing, toss-pottery.

Your initial inclinations are right, imo. People feel and think the same after these outrages, but there's only so many times you can express it on social media, before you figure the penny should have dropped with your Friends/Followers/Groupies/Pimps.

If someone doesn't feel outrage/despair/compassion (perm any of the above) whenever one of these heinous acts are perpetrated, then there is probably a little something wrong with them, tbh.
Click to expand...



totally agree. It's simply that there is only so much anyone can say

as moehat says the priest killing numbed and been hard to not think about all day.
 
Last edited:
As others have said, words now fail us. The outbreak of World War One was described by someone as 'a desecration being inflicted on mankind' and that is apposite enough now

I'm not desensitized as each successive atrocity is a blow upon a bruise and I hate it with a vengeance: numb indeed, though hateful numbness could translate into a shrugging habituation given time; perhaps that's necessary in order to maintain sanity
 
I think that's similar to me Drone. Unlike Clive I found that it wasn't hard not to think about it all day. I tended to treat as 'another one' with an air of inevitability about it. It might have occupied me for about 15-20 minutes as I read the story, but I pretty well found myself shrugging my shoulders in a sort of resigned way that might even be called apathetic. Doubtless there's more to come, and it would be a bloody miracle if we don't cop for something soon. I think the one that's probably struck home most for me though was Nice. This was the first time I didn't find myself shocked or in some kind of state of disbelief, and yet looking at the body count of course I should have been. Something seems to have changed a bit in me now I sense. It's as if I'm resigning myself to an inevitable next stage and just treating these series of attacks as battlefield reports now. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something is starting to feel different
 
Grasshopper said:
I think the 'desensitized' argument is basically just leftie, what-if, navel-gazing, toss-pottery.

Your initial inclinations are right, imo. People feel and think the same after these outrages, but there's only so many times you can express it on social media, before you figure the penny should have dropped with your Friends/Followers/Groupies/Pimps.

If someone doesn't feel outrage/despair/compassion (perm any of the above) whenever one of these heinous acts are perpetrated, then there is probably a little something wrong with them, tbh.
Click to expand...

The glorious leader after the Paris attacks with his shoulder shrugging body language and plethora of whatabouts

it's like grief. Just because it stretches over time it doesn't mean it means any less. Not in the slightest. It changes nature and emphasis but the principle is still there

but even so, if you can't be outraged at the thought of a 86 year old priest being beheaded in a remote French church then there is something wrong as grass says

and if you can't be delighted when the attackers get totalled (unfortunately too quickly and efficiently) then again there is something wrong. As with those who wrung their hands or even moaned about the killing (too swift sadly... I would have gone for the Japanese ww2 method of a live autopsy) of jihadi john
 
clivex said:
and if you can't be delighted when the attackers get totalled (unfortunately too quickly and efficiently) then again there is something wrong. As with those who wrung their hands or even moaned about the killing (too swift sadly... I would have gone for the Japanese ww2 method of a live autopsy) of jihadi john
Click to expand...

Delighted that they're shot dead or blown to smithereens but I don't hold with a literal eye-for-an-eye tooth-for-a-tooth: torture as retribution is the apogee of barbarity and has no place in the civilized world, however heinous the crime

Daesh want a return to the mores of the middle ages, we shouldn't follow suit

If Jihadi John was put in front of a firing squad I'd quite happily be a member of it, but I couldn't be part of a team who straps him down and turns the thumb screws, or sticks a red hot poker up his arse, or...

Could you Clivex?
 
clivex said:
The glorious leader after the Paris attacks with his shoulder shrugging body language and plethora of whatabouts

it's like grief. Just because it stretches over time it doesn't mean it means any less. Not in the slightest. It changes nature and emphasis but the principle is still there

but even so, if you can't be outraged at the thought of a 86 year old priest being beheaded in a remote French church then there is something wrong as grass says

and if you can't be delighted when the attackers get totalled (unfortunately too quickly and efficiently) then again there is something wrong. As with those who wrung their hands or even moaned about the killing (too swift sadly... I would have gone for the Japanese ww2 method of a live autopsy) of jihadi john
Click to expand...

I think I recall the Jihadi John issue being about the legality, as he was killed in Syria but we weren't legally bombing there at that time.
I remember a few backbench Labour politicians especially critical of Cameron during that period.
The desensitisation issue is not part of any particular agenda, media or otherwise.
People essentially become more desensitized the more they know and understand a subject...i.e in this case, these latest killings are further evidence to prove a point about Daesh that has been made time and time again to us and everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Drone said:
Delighted that they're shot dead or blown to smithereens but I don't hold with a literal eye-for-an-eye tooth-for-a-tooth: torture as retribution is the apogee of barbarity and has no place in the civilized world, however heinous the crime

Daesh want a return to the mores of the middle ages, we shouldn't follow suit

If Jihadi John was put in front of a firing squad I'd quite happily be a member of it, but I couldn't be part of a team who straps him down and turns the thumb screws, or sticks a red hot poker up his arse, or...

Could you Clivex?
Click to expand...

im a bit squeamish in fact. I suppose the regret is that before he was evaporated he would have known virtually nothing. His victims had to wait until the actual spinal cord was severed
 
Marble said:
I think I recall the Jihadi John issue being about the legality, as he was killed in Syria but we weren't legally bombing there at that time.
I remember a few backbench Labour politicians especially critical of Cameron during that period.

Finally, we should always remember we are quite a select bunch on here. I know people that are just as outraged at the violence as us, but they aren't going on the internet to provide running commentary on their feelings. This doesn't mean they 'need help' or are uncaring individuals.

The desensitisation issue is not part of any particular agenda, media or otherwise.
Essentially, people become more desensitized the more they know and understand a subject...i.e in this case, these latest killings are further evidence to prove a point about Daesh that has been made time and time again to us and everyone else.
Click to expand...

Well we can relax knowing that he won't be suing th uk government now that he's a pile of mince
 
Also marble I'm sure there was a far left lawyer who would have campaigned against the liberation of the concentration camps on the basis that it was "illegal"
 
Drone said:
Delighted that they're shot dead or blown to smithereens but I don't hold with a literal eye-for-an-eye tooth-for-a-tooth: torture as retribution is the apogee of barbarity and has no place in the civilized world, however heinous the crime

Daesh want a return to the mores of the middle ages, we shouldn't follow suit

If Jihadi John was put in front of a firing squad I'd quite happily be a member of it, but I couldn't be part of a team who straps him down and turns the thumb screws, or sticks a red hot poker up his arse, or...

Could you Clivex?
Click to expand...

Would a guy being chased over a cliff-edge by a pack of hungry wolves, constitute torture?

Of would it just be a guy who chose to jump over a cliff-edge, rather than be devoured by a pack of hungry wolves?

If the latter, I'll be happy to put in a few hours building the scaffolding for the stands, and work the Pick'n'Mix stall on the day.

Instant obliteration is all very well, but I'd rather they knew it was coming. One of those little robot things they got the Dallas shooter with, would be ideal. Any Jihadi would know he was cashiered, the moment it trundled round the corner. And I want them to have the realisation that, at the moment of their imminent expiration, their lives have been fraudulent and worthless, and they definitely aren't going to enter Paradise.

I want it to be their last conscious thought, before WALL-E despatches them.

PS. That Dallas technology is exactly what is needed for the vile job of clearing Daesh from their remaining Iraqi strongholds, whilst limiting casualties amongst the Iraqi Army.
 
Last edited:
A key part of our democracy is that we live by the rule of law, Clivex. We've seen what happens when we make 'moral' foreign policy decisions (e.g 2003). However, if lawyers want to use law in a political context, they first should acknowledge what the actual context is.

No point digging your head in the ground whilst trying to argue a piece of law to get your way, as I think these lawyers sometimes do.

So I'm sort of in the middle, I think we need lawyers, but people with common sense aswell.
 
Last edited:
So that would include Obama Blair and Sadik Khan for starters clivex? They are all former legal professionals aren't they. You let your heart over rule basic logic sometimes you know.just because Dianne Abbot and a few others i can't recall said the Syria bombing was legally questionable doesn't mean all lawyers are worse than Isis.
 
Last edited:
simmo said:
I blame Icebreaker for flouncing off in a huff when he couldn't take what he was dishing out. He was a lock to come on with some hand-wringing, gnashing of teeth and general wailing, before screaming for the complete destruction of islam and calling anyone who disagreed with him an anti-Semite (completely missing the meaning of semite in the process).
Click to expand...

Didn't see this. Why don't you drop it you worthless prick? You got what you wanted and he won't be back .
 
Back
Top