Krellin - I do lament these dead, but an accident =/= a lunatic bomber attack.

And how are "5 to 15 people confirmed dead"? Are there 10 people confirmed undead? Only 5 would be confirmed dead. The police confirmed as many as 15 may be dead, but 5 to 15 people are not confirmed dead. Gotta love moron reporters.

Oh, and an accident at a local fertilizer plant where only locals were involved does not equal an attack at a major sporting event with people from around *the world*.

semeck83 already created a thread. The fertilizer explosion is big news too, with 75 to 100 homes destroyed. Staggering. It's been a big news week.

Krellin, do you honestly try to turn every tragic event or situation into a reason to bitch at people? That's how you get off, isn't it?

I can only speak for myself. *I* didn't post about it because West, Texas is not a town I've ever been to, whereas I lived in Boston for two years and frequented that block. So it's pretty natural that a factory explosion in a town I've never been to or heard of doesn't strike me as personally as one in a place I've been to many times and can picture from memory.

Perhaps a better question is why you, Krellin, didn't post a note of sympathy or memorial here. No, your first reaction to attack someone, not for something they said, but for something they didn't say.

In other words, even though I'm usually pretty civil, I'm in no mood for this bullshit today. Fuck off, Krellin. (I'll apologize for this later, when I'm feeling civil once again.)

@spyman - Semck created a thread? Didn't get much traction, did it? Just as this one won't.

What's the reason? Why do people get so much more worked up over three dead in Boston by a "terrorist" bombing versus an accident (unconfirmed) at a fertilizer plant.

@Draug - You yourself did it. - you MINIMIZEd the "tragedy" element of this by saying, "Oh..it was just an accident...not a bombing..." as if the children who suddenly lost a Mother/Father are grieving any less because of the particular method of their death.

...as if the victims of violence in Detroit or Chicago are grieving any less because their family members are kills one at a time...and yet nobody grieves for them, either.

So again - I ask the question - why do people get so emotionally worked up over *SOME* deaths, but not others? And I suggest it is because they are maniuplated by the media...*told* to grieve by the sad face on the TV with the dramatic headline and accompanying music in the background.

@y2k -- I'm not bitching...I'm pointing out that you are all (well, most of you, any way...) are helpless sheeple who let the media play your thoughts and emotions like a fine violin...

"as if the children who suddenly lost a Mother/Father are grieving any less because of the particular method of their death."

Those children who lost parents probably aren't crying because more people died in Iraq today than in this plant explosion. The kids probably went online to check death counts in all war zones just to make sure they were allowed to be sad.

"Sorry kids, but you can't be sad about your parents because 27 people died in Baghdad today."

@Heck - I didn't post a note of sympathy because:

1. I keep my grieving to myself, and if I were to post a note of sympathy for every "tragic" death that occurred, then I would be accused of spamming the forum.

2. Because this event doesn't afect me, as Boston did not affect me, as the murders in Chicago don't affect me, or the *30* people PER DAY killed by drunk driving don't affect me (stat via the CDC...yes, the US government tracks Drunk Driving Deaths as a disease, effectively...).....but there are *some* here who feel they *must* make a public display of grieving over things that don't affect them....so I just want to know exactly what it is that causes them to grieve for some and not others. Some may think I'm heartless...but at least I'm not a god damned sheep, only grieving when I'm instructed to grieve!

You are free to tell me to fuck off...it's your right...you've been instructed by your media masters to dislike me because I don't properly grieve, so I forgive you your outburst.

@2WL - You're an idiot, and purposely misinterpretting what I said. Obviously the children DIRECTLY AFFECTED by the death of a parent are and should grieve. It's all the god damned sheep - like YOU - that randomly grieve when you are instructed by the media that sicken me.

You will grieve for Boston, but, as you point out, you won't grive for Iraq...most people won't even bother to see how many American's died in Iraw or Afghanistan today, or last week, or last month, because the media doesn't care about our wars any more, now that a Democrat is in the White House and they don't want to run a death count against Obama...fucking hypocrites.

It's got nothing to do with you not grieving, it's got to do with you calling me and others out for not grieving when and where you say.

As I said, an event in a city where I know people, where my wife happened to be on the day of the event, on a block I've walked over and over again? You're goddamn right that's going to have a bigger impact on me than something happening half a continent away.

Once again, you're using the media as a red herring to justify your own overdeveloped, misplaced sense of self-righteous superiority. Go troll elsewhere.

Or rather, go troll somebody else. I'm out.

@Heck -- No...I'm asking a fucking question...Why do you people grieve in some cases and not others. The media isn't a red herring - for MOST of you it's the master of yoru public emotions.

I'm not telling anyone *not* to grieve. I don't understand why someone would need to grieve HERE - like we are all going to be impressed with someone's public grieving.

I *do* understand that if someone was *directly* impacted by the events in Boston that they are grieving, should be grieving, and probably want to talk about it. I do not understand someone in Buttfuck, USA hundreds of miles away pretending to be deeply impacted by the events in Boston, but not by other, constant tragedies…and the only explanation I can come up with is the media presentation (or lack thereof…) of various tragedies.

If you are too blind to see the connection, then *that* is why you are such a good sheep!

Well, if you're legitimately asking a question or asking people to question why they feel the way do, that's one thing. If you're encouraging people to consider perspective, I can understand that. But your question smacked of the rhetorical.

But there is also a degree to which it's very psychologically understandable to be more shocked by a deliberate act than by an accident. Accidents can be attributed to chance, fate, or god, depending on your perspective. They're no less tragic, but more... understandable in a way. But a deliberate act forces people to find a way to come to terms with something darker, a hidden corner of human nature. I'd posit that people who are distant from Boston but deeply moved by the events there are not so much mourning the dead as trying not to see something deeper about themselves.

As to your points about Iraq and Afghanistan, that may be media-related, but not, perhaps, in the way you're suggesting. In 2002, the images coming into your living room were gruesome, and shocking, and there was horror. More than a decade later, we're desensitized. Someone says, "Afgnanistan" and you unconsciously brace yourself. It numbs the shock. But when someone says, "In Boston today..." what follows comes as a total surprise.

Me, I was more shocked because I heard about Boston when my wife texted me saying, "I just heard two loud bangs and now there are cops everywhere. Did something just happen in Boston?" Then I couldn't reach her for 20 minutes. So yeah... this hit me harder.

So... if your point is that people should be more sensitive to the fact that suffering happens around the world daily, and we should do everything we can about *all* of it, then point well taken. But if your point is, "wake up sheeple, I'm smarter than you are" then you're both an ass and an asshole.

Krellin will be relieved to know that the media hivemind has now condoned shock and outrage over West, Texas. Matt Lauer is reporting live from West this morning. All praise be to our benevolent television overlords.

Why does murder get more press than a car crash? I don't see why a killing, especially a premeditated killing in a national event wit at large suspects, should get the same coverage as an accident. I just don't understand this argument. The poster doesn't seem to have thought this through.

@HumanWave
It's Krellin. He has his own agenda.

@hecks - "Once again, you're using the media as a red herring to justify your own overdeveloped, misplaced sense of self-righteous superiority. Go troll elsewhere."

+1

And major disasters do get major attention as well. Inf act, had the Boston bombers not done their thing, the West Texas devastation would have gotten even more attention, much like when a series of tornados take out entire towns and counties or an earthquake rocks and destroys much of San Francisco or a hurricane moves through the Gulf Coast and washes New Orleans out to sea. We, as a nation, rally behind these causes as well. We support the red cross. We bring survivors into our homes from as far away as the opposite side of the country (I fostered a dog while his owners got back on their feet and then returned him when his owners got to new pet-friendly housing and so did several of my animal loving friends). We do rally and help our fellow man who can't help himself, more than our own government does often times.