To be annoyed with the "something must be done" attitude

[Flashbangandgone]

Another refugee crisis related one - sorry - but it really annoys me that:

1. Something catches the media's attention (e.g. dead boy washed up on shore, even though similar things have happenned countless times over the past few years) and a bandwagon begins

2. People quickly jump on the bandwagon proclaiming "something must be done"

3. The Government shows phoney concern at the outcry and gives a pathetic and seemingly cynical response (4,000 refugees a year from camps when those that are in real need are the thousands not lucky enough to be in camps)

4. The bandwagon is satisfied that "something has been done" without any real thought about what that "something" is, and move on, self-satisfied that their clamour has delivered results.

It's all so superficial and pathetic....

Sorry, Redyella, but I have to disagree. What makes no sense is sudden collective hand-wringing at the sight of a dead child, despite the fact that we've all been aware of children dying in the same way on a daily basis for months or even years now.

Call it cognitive-dissonance, call it hypocrisy, it still makes no sense though. You might NOW say that something must be done, but that was always true. I think it was Stalin who said that a million deaths is a number, but one death is a tragedy. Your response seems to embody this perfectly.

I agree with you. And it is only because of the media that so much attention is being focused on Syrian refugees, but there are people from other countries that are going through a very similar thing, if not exactly the same thing in some cases, but they've got no attention at all.

Exactly Osolea. Where is the outcry for the children in the Sudan or DRC, who've been suffering worse than this for years?

Call me cynical but I think for most people the outcry is less about a realistic, measured response to the immense suffering in the world and more about giving people a chance to show how caring they are on social media.

But what does it matter if it's been true all along? Does it mean that if people didn't care in the beginning they should remain consistent and not care now?

Does the fact that there are millions of other suffering children mean that we shouldn't try and help one?

I never understand those arguments.

So people are late to the giving-a-shit party and won't stay very long; that can't be changed, but while people are aware hopefully some will do real good and there will be a small change in attitudes. Perhaps next time the media talk about a refugee crisis this photo will be in people's minds and there will be a more immediate reaction.

Babycham You're wrong about that.

I have also wept over children in Africa and pay a lot of money every month to help.

You can bear the burden of the whole world but you can act on what you encounter that resonates deeply.

Have you?

a cynical bone of a soundbite to throw to the tabloid dogs

What a brilliant phrase ... I might just shamelessly pinch it!!

Have I what?

Have I had sleepless nights over an image of one death, while the media are full of thousands of them constantly? Nope.

Have I suddenly decided to give to a specific cause because of an orchestrated short-term media campaign? Not as far as I'm aware.

Do I try to do the right thing where I can and proactively take part in and support those causes that are aligned to my core beliefs? Yes, I hope I do.

Knee-jerk outpourings of grief and one-off donations do little but assuage the givers' guilt. It's a selfish reaction as much as anything else (as is most charitable giving - my own included, I'm sure).

A couple of months ago, it was all about Charlie Hebdo, now it's all about Syrian refugees; in a couple of months it will be something different again.

Brilliant posts by Manatee and Babycham

Politician's syllogism:

Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore we must do this.

And so?

There is more suffering in the world than we can possibly comprehend. No individual could possibly keep it at the forefront of their minds and function. Most people rarely think about things outside their own little bubble at all.

Given that, it would be stupid not to capitalise on any passing waft of public sympathy/media interest. At the end of the day a meal is a meal, a shelter is a shelter and temporary right to remain is better than the Jungle.

Yep, OP i totally agree.
I have even started asking who these people are who are going to do something about it. Or better still, asking who they think should do something about it.

I don't understand. Are you saying that the UL should do nothing with regard to the Syrian refugees? Or are you saying that now that Cameron has said we will do something, a rather paltry something imo, that everyone us now rolling over?

Can't agree with you on either. I'm still marching on Saturday as I think the UK's response is feeble.

The recent outcry is 99% sentimentalism and virtue-signalling with barely any grasp of context, geopolitics or any kind of practical or sustainable solution

Superbly put.

The value-signalling on this site alone is extraordinary. As well as the 'I'd take one but DH wouldn't like it/I like my own space/I want a nice orphaned child guff', I also smirked at 'I'd march but I'm at a wedding that day.'

I really object to seeing posters lambasted as racist for worrying that some of those intimidating angry young men might bring lawlessness here. For suggesting that a calm, organised procedure of registration is preferable to some Richard Curtis swelling music-type moment where all borders come down and we welcome the whole world into Europe, no awful questions ever asked.

And the final thing which has got right on my tits is the extraordinary aggression with which its argued that all refugees should come to the UK to join family or friends because it's a basic and understandable human right to want to be with those of one's own culture and language. The same argument which, when used by posters concerned for their own culture, results in shrieks of 'imperial racist.'

I've lived in many countries. I know empirically that there are people who wish the British harm. I think the Disneyfication of all refugees as grateful, honest and war-torn recipients of our largesse naive in the extreme.

Best expressed (as always) by the genius Adam Curris. Everyone should watch this, and its sequel

Ohdearism PT 1:

Whoops, Curtis*

Just because you disagree with someone else's view - because you think they should have cared sooner or care more widely or care more locally or whatever - doesn't meant that they are virtue-signalling.

They just feel differently about it.

I agree, SquareFrances, but disagreeing with someone isn't the same as noting people's intellectual or emotional dishonesty with themselves. I wasn't aiming what at any one person, more at the general societal discourse at the moment.

Social media seems to allow people think they've DONE something by clicking a petition, donating a fiver or 'liking' a thread. That so many people feel smug at doing so is an act of gross stupidity and moral onanism. It's self-indulgent in the extreme and, frankly, shouldn't be encouraged even if it does raise a few million for questionable charities here and there (Kids Company, anyone?)

olivepip59
Thank you! You have expressed exactly how I feel, far more succinctly than I ever could.

I'd rather see people be smug and signalling their virtue by loudly donating a fiver than see people be smug and signalling their virtue by lodufly decrying those who donate. If you're choosing between high horses, then At least choose the horse that makes some small positive difference in the world.

I'm only here because some people chose to be smug and virtue signalling seventy odd years ago, and house my grandparents as they fled the Nazis. And my grandmothers had to work as domestic servants for their host families too. Oddly enough, my grandparents were eternally grateful to those families, rather than decrying their cynical self-interest dressed up as altruism.

A final point: my grandparents were labelled dangerous aliens too.

Interesting and thought-provoking responses....

It's the also crass oversimplification of complex situations into 'right' and 'wrong' and the demonisation of others who don't see the world you're way... 'Liberals' can be as 'fundamentalist' and fascists in this regard. It's as though life were a childish pantomime world of goodies and baddies.

Ah, so it's not the "right kind" of engagement with world issues, is that it?

I would much rather people did something, than sat back and rolled their eyes at the bien peasants and their emotions.

Because (and this may shock the professional contrarians at Spiked), but to some of us, Syria isn't just a place in the news, and the people suffering aren't just faces on t.v, but our loved ones.

For anyone, with any connection to Syria, this has been a long, horrible four years. It should not have taken the world this long to wake up to the reality of what has been happening, but I'm glad it's finally taking place.

If you aren't interested, or have other issues that occupy your time, fine, but don't mock those who are doing something, however small. When things are this desperate, everything counts.

I agree Flash, there is demonisation going on - but perhaps by both sides? (See this post, mention of virtue-signalling etc).

There aren't goodies and baddies, even doing good and bad can be hard to call sometimes - giving a fiver to a homeless drug addict for instance. But shouldn't people try?

I've quit Facebook so don't know how it's playing on that. I know sentimentalism can be irritating - I totally agree with what Babycham said but ultimately think, however insufferable people may be being about it, increasing awareness and assistance for those in need can not be a bad thing.

It's the also crass oversimplification of complex situations into 'right' and 'wrong'

That just about sums up your OP and your posts.

The line that it is all terribly complex and shades of grey is trotted out ad nauseam by the defenders of inaction, who are all too often complacent conservatives.