In some ways, the U.S. has done to executions and automated foreign assassinations what the supermarket has done to eating meat. We are distanced from the act so that we aren't overly burdened thinking about about what is done in our names, both as citizens and voters. Hence, we do not oppose something that we normally would, were we only more aware of it.
Oklahoma's being sued by the ACLU and newspapers because the state restricted the press's access to what was happening during Claton Lockett's botched execution:
People sometimes forget that while the press is often accused of being lurid and prurient, they do actually serve a civic function. (Or really, the Press is an overly broad category, and there are good investigative journalists whom people throw under the bus because CNN is terrible)
I don't think so. You're dramatizing both situations, I assume based on personal bias.
The US executes about 40x people per year (with a brief higher spike in the late '90s and early '00s); in the 1980s it was maybe 15 to 20 per year.
Texas accounts for not quite half of that.
So remind me again how your statement is meaningful among a population of 317+ million in which the radical majority of Americans live in states that either have abolished executions or execute people very rarely.
How is that some kind of large scale desensitized system of execution? Where are the thousands of annual executions that would take place in such an actual case of desensitization?
"The public was scandalized by their own violence; the government embarrassed."
One wonders, if there was better coverage of drone strikes and police brutality and everything else, if the American public might lose taste for their current regime.
I'm not sure if people would lose their taste for drone strikes. The reason people were upset about Vietnam had nothing to do with how many NVA or VC were killed (despite the fact that more than 10 times as many North Vietnamese soldiers died as did Americans, and often in much less palatable ways) but everything to do with the number of Americans slaughtered in living color for what seemed like no good reason.
With drone strikes, the harm only happens to the other guy (and yes, civilians can be "other guys"), and currently the other guy is pretty widely reviled in the US. There is already widespread guncam footage of drone strikes, as well as helicopter rocket attacks, gunship strafing, and bombing runs which give you pretty much the best seat in the house to view them. The aftermath can frequently be seen in mainstream news sources. I think the American public likes drone strikes just as much as "the current regime" and more videos won't really change that.
Yes, I think so. The current language around drone strikes is one of precision, sanitation, and infallibility. It's a one-way message that's easy to swallow. Faced with widely-reported counter information, such as actual photographs of "collateral damage", that spin must surely crumble.
This is obviously well-known to the military, having learned from their abject failure to control reporters during Vietnam. And is why reporters are now "embedded" within the military rather than be allowed to roam free (the spin for that, of course, being "safety").
It's important to note that while, as the article notes, the last public execution via the guillotine occurred in 1939, it was used out of sight by the French govt through 1977. [1]
> This is what Roland Barthes called photography’s “catastrophe,” the photograph’s unique ability to make a viewer “observe with horror an anterior future of which death is the stake.” But this catastrophe is not the brutal performance of an execution. Rather, it is a poignant bruising of the self that occurs while looking at photograph [sic], that dreadful recognition that everyone photographed is dead or will be dead.
Everyone "is dead or will be dead", photographed or otherwise. Presumably it requires a professional philosopher to imagine that there is about this fact something extraordinary, or that there is about its recognition something other than a necessary stage in the transition between infancy and adulthood.
I think there's definitely something uncanny about being able to look a dead person in the eyes. It's not so much the recognition that everyone will die as the ability to simultaneously see them as a living being and know them to be gone. Granted, it's debatable whether photographs actually do anything new in that regard. I get the same uncanny feeling when I look in the eyes of the Hellenistic Egyptian mummy paintings:
"Presumably it requires a professional philosopher to imagine that there is about this fact something extraordinary"
One of the purposes of philosophy is to deeply reflect on things that most people take for granted. Sometimes this leads to the observation that the "ordinary" is actually rather strange.
It's a bit unfair to act as though nihilism simply removes all profound meaning from things. After all, life has a terrible mortality rate, but it's oddly not 100% [0]. We tend I live as though we'll keep living, a delusion that takes hold pretty hard for most people. A photograph helps reset that, as it's always showing a point in the past that's now lost, but does so with clarity; normally the past is fuzzier than that, and that can be a bit disquieting.
Heck, I'm not a professional philosopher by any stretch, though. Just someone who putters with stuff.
[0] http://what-if.xkcd.com/27/
"I plan to live forever. So far so good!" (Note: statement may need TimeStamp to remain consistent)
It's philosophically difficult to say 'someone is dead' in the present. Post-life, it's very difficult for your subject to verb. When you are consuming media of a person that is dead, though, like video or photographs, the dead subject is verbing before your eyes.
"And Weidmann was, of course, executed for his crimes. His execution was widely covered, and even Franz Kafka was dispatched by Paris-Soir to cover the anticipated event."
Err, what? Kafka died in 1924, 15 years before Weidmann's execution. He also never worked for Paris-Soir or any other newspaper.
[+] [-] beloch|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knowtheory|11 years ago|reply
Oklahoma's being sued by the ACLU and newspapers because the state restricted the press's access to what was happening during Claton Lockett's botched execution:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/newspapers-are-suing-oklaho...
People sometimes forget that while the press is often accused of being lurid and prurient, they do actually serve a civic function. (Or really, the Press is an overly broad category, and there are good investigative journalists whom people throw under the bus because CNN is terrible)
[+] [-] adventured|11 years ago|reply
The US executes about 40x people per year (with a brief higher spike in the late '90s and early '00s); in the 1980s it was maybe 15 to 20 per year.
Texas accounts for not quite half of that.
So remind me again how your statement is meaningful among a population of 317+ million in which the radical majority of Americans live in states that either have abolished executions or execute people very rarely.
How is that some kind of large scale desensitized system of execution? Where are the thousands of annual executions that would take place in such an actual case of desensitization?
[+] [-] angersock|11 years ago|reply
One wonders, if there was better coverage of drone strikes and police brutality and everything else, if the American public might lose taste for their current regime.
[+] [-] jeffpetes|11 years ago|reply
With drone strikes, the harm only happens to the other guy (and yes, civilians can be "other guys"), and currently the other guy is pretty widely reviled in the US. There is already widespread guncam footage of drone strikes, as well as helicopter rocket attacks, gunship strafing, and bombing runs which give you pretty much the best seat in the house to view them. The aftermath can frequently be seen in mainstream news sources. I think the American public likes drone strikes just as much as "the current regime" and more videos won't really change that.
[+] [-] senorprogrammer|11 years ago|reply
This is obviously well-known to the military, having learned from their abject failure to control reporters during Vietnam. And is why reporters are now "embedded" within the military rather than be allowed to roam free (the spin for that, of course, being "safety").
[+] [-] a3n|11 years ago|reply
http://life.time.com/history/faces-of-the-american-dead-in-v...
[+] [-] vacri|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enraged_camel|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ternaryoperator|11 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine
[+] [-] aaronem|11 years ago|reply
Everyone "is dead or will be dead", photographed or otherwise. Presumably it requires a professional philosopher to imagine that there is about this fact something extraordinary, or that there is about its recognition something other than a necessary stage in the transition between infancy and adulthood.
[+] [-] benbreen|11 years ago|reply
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fayum_mummy_portr...
[+] [-] joshuacc|11 years ago|reply
One of the purposes of philosophy is to deeply reflect on things that most people take for granted. Sometimes this leads to the observation that the "ordinary" is actually rather strange.
[+] [-] HCIdivision17|11 years ago|reply
Heck, I'm not a professional philosopher by any stretch, though. Just someone who putters with stuff.
[0] http://what-if.xkcd.com/27/ "I plan to live forever. So far so good!" (Note: statement may need TimeStamp to remain consistent)
[+] [-] pessimizer|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anatoly|11 years ago|reply
Err, what? Kafka died in 1924, 15 years before Weidmann's execution. He also never worked for Paris-Soir or any other newspaper.
[+] [-] gohrt|11 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs (John Oliver / Last Week Tonight, on drones)