Just Another Death at the Beach for Some Italians

[Morning Glory]

Shocking Indifference to Roma Drowning

TORREGAVETA, Italy (July 21) - Italian newspapers, an archbishop and civil liberties campaigners expressed shock and revulsion on Monday after photographs were published of sunbathers apparently enjoying a day at the beach just meters from where the bodies of two drowned Roma girls were laid out on the sand.

http://news.aol.com/article/shocking...144x1200292688

[One Eyed Cat]

http://news.aol.com/article/shocking...144x1200292688

Wish I could say this surprised me. I am glad most Italians are disguisted by this. It will serve as a wake-up call.

[Morning Glory]

no, no surprise. i'm also hoping that this kind of buzz, not to mention the ghastly photos, will incite more members of the international community to speak out against this.

[Raza]

"Speak out" against what? Enjoying your day off at the beach?

Those people had nothing to do with those corpses, and there's no reason why they should have changed their behaviour on account of their presence. It's just.. completely unrelated. People are likely to find it gross or distasteful, but that's a horrible reason for attacking others when they aren't actually harming anyone, as anyone enjoying goth or punk culture aught to realise.

Besides, you can't really see that they're corpses. Might just be people trying to take a nap - people bury themselves under hats, towels, sand and all sorts of crap on the beach all the time. If I'd seen them like that, I wouldn't have given them a second glance - or at least not a third, if no one else seemed to behave oddly around them.


Bigger question is why they were left there. Lying out in the sun isn't very good for corpses, I don't think.

[Morning Glory]

I think to close the beach for one fucking day to respect the dead wouldn't be too much to ask.

maybe if it was just a single isolated incident of callousness, but in the context of an alarming national trend of apathy and mistrust of fellows, it's another sad nail in the coffin, and that is why it's generating such a buzz.

there are groups in Italy that have been putting out a lot of public pressure and trying to pass legislation to sanction segregationist and racial profiling tactics against Roma and other minority groups in the nation. Many people are appalled by it and are accusing Italy of creeping towards a slippery slope back to fascism.

[Mr Karl]

hmmmmm..............

[Raza]

I think to close the beach for one fucking day to respect the dead wouldn't be too much to ask.

It'd say it is. The dead aren't served by this in any way, and the freedoms of the living shouldn't be compromised pointlessly. You warn of fascism; rationalizing the restriction of liberties through demands of 'respect' for symbolism is one of its characterising methods.

maybe if it was just a single isolated incident of callousness, but in the context of an alarming national trend of apathy and mistrust of fellows, it's another sad nail in the coffin, and that is why it's generating such a buzz.

there are groups in Italy that have been putting out a lot of public pressure and trying to pass legislation to sanction segregationist and racial profiling tactics against Roma and other minority groups in the nation. Many people are appalled by it and are accusing Italy of creeping towards a slippery slope back to fascism.

You have to realise that with a diverse human population, all these things are incidents, even if there's a whole bunch of them observable countrywide. The people sitting here at the beach aren't any more likely to be involved with segregationism than anyone not sitting there; and in fact, considering almost any existing idea of evil or moral wrong can be reduced to an absence of empathy in a situation in which we feel it should have been present, your presentation of 'callousness' as a common characteristic is fairly meaningless. The connection you're drawing here is little more than pointing out two things you don't like and attributing both to dislikability.

[Bikerpunk]

I agree with Raza. What are you supposed to do, get up and walk away?
They weren't molesting the corpse or anything.

Besides, not my business.

[jonny.illuminati]

there is a different view of death in other places... i have seen people step over rotting corpses in the streets... i have watched people die to a multitude of different reactions from indifference to hysteria... i have lived in italy... they aren't being callus, death happens. they can't bring them back... i have held friends in my arms while they died (from violence) i don't remember what i felt... but most of the world moves around it as long as it does not directly affect them...

celebrate life while you have it, not death... death will be around to visit soon enough.

[Morning Glory]

I'm sorry raza, but I think you have a pretty fucked up perspective if you think that being considerate for other people is fascism and a strain on liberty.

I suppose that you think that the lynchings of the 1920's were all just "incidents". You act like I'm grasping at straws here to establish some kind of connection that I dislike for purely personal reasons, and that there is no context or history influencing the events. I think you are being shortsighted by refusing to acknowledge that.

you're entitled to your opinion of philosophizing about the nature of morality, but I don't see things that way. real world actions have real world consequences. You can pretend like nothing happened, that two people didn't lose their lives, that their family is not going to be in extreme pain and sorrow, that nobody cares or is effected by that outside of the people involved, especially after seeing the bodies, that there is no injustice or that it wasn't motivated by their ethnic and social status, and most of all that we don't have any obligation to see these things and say something as they keep happening, but it's just pretend, because all those things I said are true.

It's simply a matter of choosing to see them, or else to go about your business and enjoy a fun day at the beach, oblivious.

[DonkeyMoses]

The lynchings of the 1920's were actual murder. Nobody murdered these girls, and evidentally, nobody stood idlly by while they drowned. two were saved. Can you call it racism if somebody is simply not freaked out by dead bodies? There's no basis of comparison to see if they wouldn't have done the same if they weren't dead gypsy girl bodies. I think people in general are just desensitized to these kinds of things. I, personally, would have at least moved down the beach a bit, but the dead aen't any less dead if there's people eating lunch near them. The weird question indeed is why they weren't carted off after they died instead of leaving them there to bake under a towel. Nobody seems to be criticizing the Itallian authorities fo littering the beach with dead bodies. Ew.

[Raza]

I'm sorry raza, but I think you have a pretty fucked up perspective if you think that being considerate for other people is fascism and a strain on liberty.

Enforcing a specific, subjective brand of 'considerate' etiquette that lacks a redeeming practical purpose at the cost of people's freedom to act differently is a restriction of liberty by every definition of the word. You may believe that it is a defensible restriction, but to deny that it is one at all is absurd.

And I didn't call it fascism, I called it a restriction of liberty rationalized by symbolism, and pointed out that this is something typical of fascism. Don't put words in my mouth please.

I suppose that you think that the lynchings of the 1920's were all just "incidents".

Oh, for gawds sake, stop arguing like a political commentator.

Yes, they were incidents. Look up the definition of incident; it's almost necessarily applicable to all such events. They were not 'just' incidents, and calling it an incident when this is objectively true neither precludes nor belittles any other significance they may or may not have.

You act like I'm grasping at straws here to establish some kind of connection that I dislike for purely personal reasons, and that there is no context or history influencing the events. I think you are being shortsighted by refusing to acknowledge that.

I argued that you were grasping at straws to connect a lack of interest in nearby corpses to racism and lynchings, yes. Like I pointed out, the only common characteristic you named was 'callousness', which can be argued to be shared with pretty much any form of social injustice as defined by any ideology, barring some of the most archaic and random religious taboos.

Here, let me try an argument in your style. My own country, the Netherlands, has a major history of racial enslavement during the imperial era. Currently popular political streams speak out against Muslims and the culture they bring here. Yesterday, someone in the bus didn't get up to let an old lady sit. All these display a recurring pattern of disconcern for our fellow human beings, therefore the international community should speak out against people not getting up to let old ladies sit on the bus.

See how ridiculous it is now?

you're entitled to your opinion of philosophizing about the nature of morality, but I don't see things that way. real world actions have real world consequences. You can pretend like nothing happened, that two people didn't lose their lives, that their family is not going to be in extreme pain and sorrow, that nobody cares or is effected by that outside of the people involved, especially after seeing the bodies, that there is no injustice or that it wasn't motivated by their ethnic and social status, and most of all that we don't have any obligation to see these things and say something as they keep happening, but it's just pretend, because all those things I said are true.

It's simply a matter of choosing to see them, or else to go about your business and enjoy a fun day at the beach, oblivious.

Right. People faced with a given situation either respond as you would, or they're 'pretending' it didn't happen. No other options are possible.

Their reactions do not require pretense. None of the things you named, when true and acknowledged, preclude their continued sitting at the beach. All that stuff is one horrible, self-righteous false dilemma.

[Mr Karl]

well, at least there aren't any 'ghouls' crowding around to have a look at a dead person

[DonkeyMoses]

Werd. Thing is, should someone react differently to a death of a stranger that happens in physical proximity than to one that they hear about miles away? Yes, the family of the deceased will be in pain and mental anguish, as would I if it was a family member or friend of mine. That has direct consequenses upon my reality. But if I were to react to every death that I hear of I'm not gonna get a lot done in my life or be mentally fit to enrich the lives of those around me. Is that different if it happens near by and I see the body? It's unfortunate, sure, but doesn't bring a tear to my eye as it woud if it was my daughter. Death happens. Most of us don't morn the dead, we morn those that are left behind. I don't think that's insensitive, it's just our brain's way of coping.

[Morning Glory]

And I didn't call it fascism

I... pointed out that this is something typical of fascism.

Don't put words in my mouth please.

There's clearly no need for me too.

Oh, for gawds sake, stop arguing like a political commentator.

Oh now you are telling me how I should argue? Sounds a little typical of fascism to me there, bud.

Yes, they were incidents. Look up the definition of incident; it's almost necessarily applicable to all such events.

Of course everything is an incident. Some incidents are "isolated incidents" as I said, and some of them are related and part of a pattern. If you were merely stating that everything is an incident IE: an event that occurs, then why did you quote what I said if you didn't want to dispute the nature of "the incident"? why even argue such an obvious meaningless point at all?

Currently popular political streams speak out against Muslims and the culture they bring here. Yesterday, someone in the bus didn't get up to let an old lady sit...therefore the international community should speak out against people not getting up to let old ladies sit on the bus.

If those ladies were Muslims, and it fits the pattern of discriminatory action towards Muslims, then yes, they should speak out against it.

Look, I'm going to stop all this nonsense now. Some people think that this is a case of racism, related to other cases of racism, and that people shouldn't be reacting to dead bodies that way, and they certainly should not be reacting to them that way on the basis of race.

It's a free country, you can agree with that or not. it's up to you...

But it might not for too much longer if you happen to live in Italy and you're a gypsie, and that is why people are upset about this.

[DonkeyMoses]

Am I gonna have to seperate you two?

[OliX]

I bet that no one even realised that they were dead.

[Raza]

And I didn't call it fascism

I... pointed out that this is something typical of fascism.

Don't put words in my mouth please.

There's clearly no need for me too.

You really don't see how that distinction could be relevant?

Oh now you are telling me how I should argue? Sounds a little typical of fascism to me there, bud.

Of course everything is an incident. Some incidents are "isolated incidents" as I said, and some of them are related and part of a pattern. If you were merely stating that everything is an incident IE: an event that occurs, then why did you quote what I said if you didn't want to dispute the nature of "the incident"? why even argue such an obvious meaningless point at all?

Because my point wasn't about whether various definitions and subclasses of 'incident' were applicable; it was that the actions of distinct individuals united only by nationality have next to nothing to do with one another morally, and even your attempt to establish a socio-psychological link is highly tenuous.

If those ladies were Muslims, and it fits the pattern of discriminatory action towards Muslims, then yes, they should speak out against it.

How about you speak out only when people's actual rights are being infringed upon, rather than against passive breaches of personal etiquette? Merely reminding of moral wrong does not an evil make, and 'speaking out' against people that have personally done no wrong because their inactions could potentially have been motivated by feelings reminiscent to those sometimes involved in actual unethical practises is, frankly, pointless moral dick-waving.

[DonkeyMoses]

...speaking of pointless moral dick-waving......

[Raza]

...speaking of pointless moral dick-waving......

If you think my posts lack a point, refute it. If you're just bothered by a conversation going on that doesn't involve you, stfu please.

[DonkeyMoses]

No offense intended. The post itself has a point, they all do. It just seems like arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. Mostly what your arguing is semantics and context. That could go round and round. And what is this "stfu"? I'm afraid I'm not entirely versed in this internet shorthand lingo.

[Raza]

I'm arguing for the sake of entertainment first and practise second. Talking to people online rarely serves a greater need than those; which opportunities we choose to respond to is a matter of taste more than purpose.

[DonkeyMoses]

I'll buy that. Argue away!