Why is one of these things not like the others?
August 31, 2010 12:45 PM Subscribe
Why did the "Twisted girl throwing puppies in a river" video generate such global outrage and attention, when other videos of violence towards animals usually don't? What was different about this video?
I have a specific question and I'd really appreciate specific answers that don't derail.
I was shocked at the widespread enraged response to that video, and attention paid to what happened in it. It is extraordinarily tame compared to the many available videos of livestock slaughters and animal experimentation, which feature more violence, more gore, often more glee on the part of the person doing the slaughtering, and more expressions of fear and pain by the animal.
Why did this video generate outrage when those videos do not?
The only two plausible reasons I can think of are: the girl was killing dogs, and in the Western world we consider dogs to be pets; the girl was killing baby animals.
I don't think either of those are the answer though, because there are plenty of videos of cosmetic experimentation of dogs/slaughter of dogs for food in non-Western countries, and of course many videos of slaughter of baby animals like lambs and chicks.
The third semi-reason I can think of is that this video garnered so much attention because provides people an opportunity to engage in recreational outrage. But even then, the other videos still don't garner even that from the mainstream world, outside of animal rights circles, like this one video has done.
I am extremely fascinated and baffled by this phenomenon. I would really appreciate direct answers to my question if you have them.
I am not interested in any soapboxing, or judgmental statements, by or about anyone.
I have a specific question and I'd really appreciate specific answers that don't derail.
I was shocked at the widespread enraged response to that video, and attention paid to what happened in it. It is extraordinarily tame compared to the many available videos of livestock slaughters and animal experimentation, which feature more violence, more gore, often more glee on the part of the person doing the slaughtering, and more expressions of fear and pain by the animal.
Why did this video generate outrage when those videos do not?
The only two plausible reasons I can think of are: the girl was killing dogs, and in the Western world we consider dogs to be pets; the girl was killing baby animals.
I don't think either of those are the answer though, because there are plenty of videos of cosmetic experimentation of dogs/slaughter of dogs for food in non-Western countries, and of course many videos of slaughter of baby animals like lambs and chicks.
The third semi-reason I can think of is that this video garnered so much attention because provides people an opportunity to engage in recreational outrage. But even then, the other videos still don't garner even that from the mainstream world, outside of animal rights circles, like this one video has done.
I am extremely fascinated and baffled by this phenomenon. I would really appreciate direct answers to my question if you have them.
I am not interested in any soapboxing, or judgmental statements, by or about anyone.
Response by poster: Tossing puppies into a river, on the other hand, has no benefit other than the perpetrator's pleasure in her own cruelty.
Just want to make one clarification: as far as I am aware, it's a mainstream practice for euthanizing unwanted puppies and kittens in rural areas all over the world.
posted by Ashley801 at 12:51 PM on August 31, 2010
Just want to make one clarification: as far as I am aware, it's a mainstream practice for euthanizing unwanted puppies and kittens in rural areas all over the world.
posted by Ashley801 at 12:51 PM on August 31, 2010
Just want to make one clarification: as far as I am aware, it's a mainstream practice for euthanizing unwanted puppies and kittens in rural areas all over the world.
Not like this.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 12:53 PM on August 31, 2010
Not like this.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 12:53 PM on August 31, 2010
Best answer: Regarding other sources of violence towards animals - bullfighting, dog fighting, cock fighting - crowd mentality (many people watching) and a sense of tradition/normalcy means it's still horrific to many, but not novel in any regard. Your example is disturbing because it is unique and therefore sensational.
posted by lizbunny at 12:58 PM on August 31, 2010
posted by lizbunny at 12:58 PM on August 31, 2010
1. The title. "Twisted girl throwing puppies in a river" is going to get watched more than "dog getting slaughtered".
2. It's a girl.
3. They are puppies. Not even adult animals, but babies of a type of animal that is usually loved by humans.
4. Regardless of whether this is an "innocent" mainstream euthanization practice or not, SOMEONE FUCKING VIDEOTAPED IT. Why oh why on earth would you tape something that is mundane and mainstream unless you want to get a rise out of someone?
posted by phunniemee at 12:59 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
2. It's a girl.
3. They are puppies. Not even adult animals, but babies of a type of animal that is usually loved by humans.
4. Regardless of whether this is an "innocent" mainstream euthanization practice or not, SOMEONE FUCKING VIDEOTAPED IT. Why oh why on earth would you tape something that is mundane and mainstream unless you want to get a rise out of someone?
posted by phunniemee at 12:59 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
As Threeway Handshake points out, "not like this." I haven't seen the video, but judging from descriptiosn of it that I've read, she appears to be enjoying herself; there's also the fact that she filmed it. If she wasn't doing it for fun, why film it? Even the slaughterhouse and animal experimentation videos you mention in your question are filmed surreptitiously to expose the practices as cruel; they're not filmed to brag or boast about acts of cruelty.
posted by infinitywaltz at 12:59 PM on August 31, 2010
posted by infinitywaltz at 12:59 PM on August 31, 2010
Just want to make one clarification: as far as I am aware, it's a mainstream practice for euthanizing unwanted puppies and kittens in rural areas all over the world.
There are lots of things that are done. We can still take umbrage at people filming themselves while taking glee at some of those things.
posted by Etrigan at 1:00 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
There are lots of things that are done. We can still take umbrage at people filming themselves while taking glee at some of those things.
posted by Etrigan at 1:00 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
It's easier to put yourself into the scene. Most people can't relate to lab experiments, never having seen the inside of a lab in person. But everyone can picture themselves standing there beside a river.
Plus, lab experiment videos are done by people in white coats, so-called experts, and surely they know what they're doing. They are performing acts which - for better or worse - are condoned by their bosses, the institution they work at, and society at large.
There was a lot of outrage not long ago, over the video of some military guy throwing a puppy off a cliff or something. So it's important to rule out selection bias, as well.
posted by ErikaB at 1:00 PM on August 31, 2010
Plus, lab experiment videos are done by people in white coats, so-called experts, and surely they know what they're doing. They are performing acts which - for better or worse - are condoned by their bosses, the institution they work at, and society at large.
There was a lot of outrage not long ago, over the video of some military guy throwing a puppy off a cliff or something. So it's important to rule out selection bias, as well.
posted by ErikaB at 1:00 PM on August 31, 2010
"Just want to make one clarification: as far as I am aware, it's a mainstream practice for euthanizing unwanted puppies and kittens in rural areas all over the world.
Not like this is right. I grew up rurally and we had to deal with city folks dropping off boxes and bags of animals more than a few times over the years.
It always broke my Dad's heart to put them down, but you can only have so many feral animals on a given amount of land. He did not, however, drown them and got really angry when he found out other people did. "Kill it or don't, but don't torture the thing!".
posted by Tchad at 1:01 PM on August 31, 2010 [3 favorites]
Not like this is right. I grew up rurally and we had to deal with city folks dropping off boxes and bags of animals more than a few times over the years.
It always broke my Dad's heart to put them down, but you can only have so many feral animals on a given amount of land. He did not, however, drown them and got really angry when he found out other people did. "Kill it or don't, but don't torture the thing!".
posted by Tchad at 1:01 PM on August 31, 2010 [3 favorites]
I think it's because as opposed to the grown animals that are slaughtered for meat (benefit to man) these were newborn pups. People react strongly to baseless hatred and cruelty shown to man's most loyal friend, especially when they never had a chance to defend themselves or find safety by running away. It was cruelty for cruelty's sake.
posted by watercarrier at 1:01 PM on August 31, 2010
posted by watercarrier at 1:01 PM on August 31, 2010
Response by poster: Very very interesting answers so far, I really appreciate it.
One last comment from me: I didn't put it in the original question, but now that lizbunny has mentioned it, I am also very interested in the difference between this and videos of things that are done just for sport, like dogfighting. (Especially videos where it's not a "fair" fight between two dogs, but one is used as bait.)
posted by Ashley801 at 1:03 PM on August 31, 2010
One last comment from me: I didn't put it in the original question, but now that lizbunny has mentioned it, I am also very interested in the difference between this and videos of things that are done just for sport, like dogfighting. (Especially videos where it's not a "fair" fight between two dogs, but one is used as bait.)
posted by Ashley801 at 1:03 PM on August 31, 2010
Also, the /b/tards at 4chan got wind of it and waged a campaign of interterror.
posted by brand-gnu at 1:05 PM on August 31, 2010 [6 favorites]
posted by brand-gnu at 1:05 PM on August 31, 2010 [6 favorites]
Best answer: I couldn't bring myself to watch this video. But from what I understand, it's only one person featured, so the only (immediately obvious) responsible parties are the girl and whoever was taping it. It's a lot easier to generate outrage that will lead to action against one person than to be outraged at a whole industry that isn't going to be brought down as easily by a bunch of people on a message board. So in the end, it might be a sense of control and/or numbers driving it. We (the thousands of outraged people on the internet) can hunt down and punish one pair of nuts torturing puppies by publishing their personal info online. We are less likely to be able to hunt down and punish entire dogfighting rings, who might also consist of thousands of people and are more likely to present some sticky issues when we try to fight back. Thousands vs. two people is a lot less work than thousands vs. thousands.
posted by Fuego at 1:14 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Fuego at 1:14 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
Why did this video generate outrage when those videos do not?
Your premise is incorrect. The other videos also generated outrage. However, many of them also have people who understand or accept or tolerate the things that happen. So they can say "well, I eat factory farmed meat so I am at some level accepting of factory farming practices" or they enjoy dog fighting or whatever. However, even though there are people in rural areas who drown unwanted puppies and kittens, there is a difference between knowing that people do this sort of thing [and I wouldn't call it mainstream by any stretch] and watching a highly circulated video of someone doing this and enjoying it.
Really, this is the Internet Outrage topic of the week and you're seeing it everywhere if you're someone who spends a lot of time on the internet. It went viral in a way that factory farming videos do not because people who have seen factory farming videos know what to expect, for the most part, when they click on one. Or, if they don't know what to expect, they get the shock value and send it to their friend who says "seen it"
This video is new, it's being spread around to people who can't just say "seen it" and it's generating discussion which includes a fair amount of outrage. The other videos also are upsetting to people and they generate outrage, but it's not the wildfire sort of outrage of this one because it's not new. PETA and other animal advocacy organizations would love it if they could generate this sort of outrage, but the takeaway lesson is that just having the most disturbing video is not enough to hit the top of the Internet Outrage charts anymore.
posted by jessamyn at 1:14 PM on August 31, 2010 [2 favorites]
Your premise is incorrect. The other videos also generated outrage. However, many of them also have people who understand or accept or tolerate the things that happen. So they can say "well, I eat factory farmed meat so I am at some level accepting of factory farming practices" or they enjoy dog fighting or whatever. However, even though there are people in rural areas who drown unwanted puppies and kittens, there is a difference between knowing that people do this sort of thing [and I wouldn't call it mainstream by any stretch] and watching a highly circulated video of someone doing this and enjoying it.
Really, this is the Internet Outrage topic of the week and you're seeing it everywhere if you're someone who spends a lot of time on the internet. It went viral in a way that factory farming videos do not because people who have seen factory farming videos know what to expect, for the most part, when they click on one. Or, if they don't know what to expect, they get the shock value and send it to their friend who says "seen it"
This video is new, it's being spread around to people who can't just say "seen it" and it's generating discussion which includes a fair amount of outrage. The other videos also are upsetting to people and they generate outrage, but it's not the wildfire sort of outrage of this one because it's not new. PETA and other animal advocacy organizations would love it if they could generate this sort of outrage, but the takeaway lesson is that just having the most disturbing video is not enough to hit the top of the Internet Outrage charts anymore.
posted by jessamyn at 1:14 PM on August 31, 2010 [2 favorites]
Because she appears to be enjoying it very much.
It is fairly common in rural areas to drown unwanted puppies -- but with a certain amount of regret and distaste for the task, not utter joy at chucking them in.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:14 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
It is fairly common in rural areas to drown unwanted puppies -- but with a certain amount of regret and distaste for the task, not utter joy at chucking them in.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:14 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
What Phunniemee said.
- Most people love dogs, and just about everyone loves cute puppies, at least in the abstract (i.e. in pictures and not in real life chewing your shoes). People feel more connection to animals generally kept as pets and/or "cute" (dogs, cats, rabbits) than, say, chickens or armadillos.
- Women and girls are supposed to be loving, kind and selfless - a cruel female is an unnatural monster (there's no such saying as "girls will be girls").
- Someone videotaped it - this isn't something a normal person would videotape unless they wanted to catch a criminal/abuser (was this the motive?). Videotaping animal cruelty for kicks is kinda...sick.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 1:16 PM on August 31, 2010 [2 favorites]
- Most people love dogs, and just about everyone loves cute puppies, at least in the abstract (i.e. in pictures and not in real life chewing your shoes). People feel more connection to animals generally kept as pets and/or "cute" (dogs, cats, rabbits) than, say, chickens or armadillos.
- Women and girls are supposed to be loving, kind and selfless - a cruel female is an unnatural monster (there's no such saying as "girls will be girls").
- Someone videotaped it - this isn't something a normal person would videotape unless they wanted to catch a criminal/abuser (was this the motive?). Videotaping animal cruelty for kicks is kinda...sick.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 1:16 PM on August 31, 2010 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I cannot watch this. But I have another suggestion about why it bothers people so much, while (most) ignore the widespread evidence about how animals are treated in pursuit of bringing us supermarket food and drugstore cosmetics.
I really think people are able to distance themselves from what this video apparently depicts. They can say with assurance that they would never happily drown innocent puppies.
But it is a lot harder to disconnect from the animal testing that lies behind most hair, face and body products -- e.g. what P & G continues to do -- or the brutal practices that produce restaurant and supermarket food.
posted by bearwife at 1:21 PM on August 31, 2010 [2 favorites]
I really think people are able to distance themselves from what this video apparently depicts. They can say with assurance that they would never happily drown innocent puppies.
But it is a lot harder to disconnect from the animal testing that lies behind most hair, face and body products -- e.g. what P & G continues to do -- or the brutal practices that produce restaurant and supermarket food.
posted by bearwife at 1:21 PM on August 31, 2010 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Puppies are cute. Little girls are cute. A little girl killing puppies is very, very far removed from the average cubicle dweller's sense of what is normal and right. Most people know that animals are slaughtered for meat, used for experimentation, or occasionally killed for sport. But a little girl smiling while she throws puppies into a river? That's just plain wrong.
Nevermind that she may very well live in an area where this is normal for some reason and she does this sort of thing every week (again, for reasons we can't even imagine) that to her it's no different than the rest of us taking out the recycling. The fact is it's not something any of us can relate to. At all.
I remember a few years ago there was similar outrage over a video of a guy killing and cooking a cat. To him it was a perfectly normal thing to be doing, cooking and eating a cat, but to a lot of folks who own and love their pet cats, it was WRONG.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending throwing puppies into a river, but like you I don't quite get the outrage about this video. I'd like to know the context before I get outraged. Is she a "twisted" girl living in the suburbs of New York City or is she some girl who grew up on a farm somewhere in some poor country and she'd be equally outraged if she saw a video of an American tossing out the leftovers from Thanksgiving dinner?
posted by bondcliff at 1:24 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
Nevermind that she may very well live in an area where this is normal for some reason and she does this sort of thing every week (again, for reasons we can't even imagine) that to her it's no different than the rest of us taking out the recycling. The fact is it's not something any of us can relate to. At all.
I remember a few years ago there was similar outrage over a video of a guy killing and cooking a cat. To him it was a perfectly normal thing to be doing, cooking and eating a cat, but to a lot of folks who own and love their pet cats, it was WRONG.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending throwing puppies into a river, but like you I don't quite get the outrage about this video. I'd like to know the context before I get outraged. Is she a "twisted" girl living in the suburbs of New York City or is she some girl who grew up on a farm somewhere in some poor country and she'd be equally outraged if she saw a video of an American tossing out the leftovers from Thanksgiving dinner?
posted by bondcliff at 1:24 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
Oh, the puppies are making little scared baby animal sounds, which appear not to move her at all. That's a huge part of it.
posted by amtho at 1:42 PM on August 31, 2010
posted by amtho at 1:42 PM on August 31, 2010
as far as I am aware, it's a mainstream practice for euthanizing unwanted puppies and kittens in rural areas all over the world.
Really? Where? I've been to some pretty rural places in my lifetime, and in my experience with countries where they treat the animals as pets they are euthanized quickly and painlessly, while in countries where they don't care for them as pets, they simply don't bother with euthanasia. Why waste a perfectly good sack on a useless animal?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:46 PM on August 31, 2010
Really? Where? I've been to some pretty rural places in my lifetime, and in my experience with countries where they treat the animals as pets they are euthanized quickly and painlessly, while in countries where they don't care for them as pets, they simply don't bother with euthanasia. Why waste a perfectly good sack on a useless animal?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:46 PM on August 31, 2010
Most people don't know what evil really looks like. It's a shock to discover that it doesn't look like Snidely Whiplash.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:48 PM on August 31, 2010
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:48 PM on August 31, 2010
Best answer: Livestock slaughter and animal experimentation, though cruel, aren't expressions of cruelty for its own sake; they have some tangible benefit to humanity (food or medicince). Tossing puppies into a river, on the other hand, has no benefit other than the perpetrator's pleasure in her own cruelty.
This can't be the reason.
Hunting and fishing for fun is considered socially acceptable even where there's no social benefit aside from the fun. (I'm not saying hunting and fishing never provide a benefit -- just that sometimes they're done purely for fun.)
Also, there is a tangible benefit to killing puppies. If you kill your puppies, you won't need to take care of them, which is going to save you lots of money. (I have no idea if the puppies in this case were her pets or if they were costing her anything, but we can put that aside.) Be as appalled as you want, but you still can't seriously claim there's no benefit from disposing of pets. That'd be like saying there's no tangible benefit from abortion because you find it morally outrageous. Sorry, that's not rational -- that's just raw outrage. Freeing yourself of the responsibility to raise your pets is arguably more of a direct, tangible benefit to yourself than ordering the sausage omelet instead of the broccoli omelet for breakfast.
posted by John Cohen at 1:52 PM on August 31, 2010
This can't be the reason.
Hunting and fishing for fun is considered socially acceptable even where there's no social benefit aside from the fun. (I'm not saying hunting and fishing never provide a benefit -- just that sometimes they're done purely for fun.)
Also, there is a tangible benefit to killing puppies. If you kill your puppies, you won't need to take care of them, which is going to save you lots of money. (I have no idea if the puppies in this case were her pets or if they were costing her anything, but we can put that aside.) Be as appalled as you want, but you still can't seriously claim there's no benefit from disposing of pets. That'd be like saying there's no tangible benefit from abortion because you find it morally outrageous. Sorry, that's not rational -- that's just raw outrage. Freeing yourself of the responsibility to raise your pets is arguably more of a direct, tangible benefit to yourself than ordering the sausage omelet instead of the broccoli omelet for breakfast.
posted by John Cohen at 1:52 PM on August 31, 2010
Why did the "Twisted girl throwing puppies in a river" video generate such global outrage and attention, when other videos of violence towards animals usually don't?
This was not the first video to capture public attention.
A chinese woman filmed crushing a kitten with her heel lead to "China's media launching a nationwide hunt".
A british woman filmed putting a cat into a rubbish bin received police protection after a violent crowd gathered at her house.
Why did this video generate outrage when those videos do not?
I'm not sure why some videos go viral while other don't - but if you did have a reliable formula for successful viral videos, internet marketers would pay you a fortune for it.
posted by Mike1024 at 1:54 PM on August 31, 2010 [3 favorites]
This was not the first video to capture public attention.
A chinese woman filmed crushing a kitten with her heel lead to "China's media launching a nationwide hunt".
A british woman filmed putting a cat into a rubbish bin received police protection after a violent crowd gathered at her house.
Why did this video generate outrage when those videos do not?
I'm not sure why some videos go viral while other don't - but if you did have a reliable formula for successful viral videos, internet marketers would pay you a fortune for it.
posted by Mike1024 at 1:54 PM on August 31, 2010 [3 favorites]
Best answer: "human kind / Cannot bear very much reality." Or, to be more highbrow about it:
posted by holgate at 2:00 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can't even deal with that! You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning.But also.
posted by holgate at 2:00 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I think there is a willful ignorance when it comes to livestock being slaughtered, cosmetics testing, etc. Many people don't want to see how the sausage is made. They don't want to feel guilty about eating it. People would feel guilty if they tossed puppies in a river.
A few weeks ago, 4chan got vengeance on an 11 year old girl who was merely spouting off empty threats and obscenities. No baby animals involved. So who knows why they do what they do - it's not connected to some internally consistent logic.
posted by desjardins at 2:14 PM on August 31, 2010
A few weeks ago, 4chan got vengeance on an 11 year old girl who was merely spouting off empty threats and obscenities. No baby animals involved. So who knows why they do what they do - it's not connected to some internally consistent logic.
posted by desjardins at 2:14 PM on August 31, 2010
I think there is a willful ignorance when it comes to livestock being slaughtered, cosmetics testing, etc. Many people don't want to see how the sausage is made.
This. This it.
All the questions about "Why don't people also get outraged about ____?" (which are very good questions) do not have rational answers. The attempt to make rational distinctions between different kinds of cruelty to animals is hopeless. People decide to perceive some kinds of cruelty and not other kinds. It's no surprise that the way people selectively perceive cruelty accords with what's personally convenient and familiar to them.
posted by John Cohen at 2:23 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
This. This it.
All the questions about "Why don't people also get outraged about ____?" (which are very good questions) do not have rational answers. The attempt to make rational distinctions between different kinds of cruelty to animals is hopeless. People decide to perceive some kinds of cruelty and not other kinds. It's no surprise that the way people selectively perceive cruelty accords with what's personally convenient and familiar to them.
posted by John Cohen at 2:23 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Many videos of cruelty to humans don't generate that much outrage.
I'd say this video spread because it's not so disgusting as to prevent you from forwarding it to others. It's disturbing, but not as god-awful as seeing Rwandan massacre sites or concentration camp victims. The puppy killer can be a conversation topic that everyone can cluck in disapproval about without causing much mental distress.
posted by benzenedream at 3:37 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'd say this video spread because it's not so disgusting as to prevent you from forwarding it to others. It's disturbing, but not as god-awful as seeing Rwandan massacre sites or concentration camp victims. The puppy killer can be a conversation topic that everyone can cluck in disapproval about without causing much mental distress.
posted by benzenedream at 3:37 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
Reddit and 4chan both have a long history of outrage at animal cruelty and tracking down the violator. A year or two ago there was a solider that threw a puppy off a cliff and reddit tracked him down. There was some guy that posted videos to youtube of cats that he mutilated, and 4chan tracked him down and got even got a DA to file charges. So this is not an isolated incident.
posted by Rhomboid at 3:53 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Rhomboid at 3:53 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
Be as appalled as you want, but you still can't seriously claim there's no benefit from disposing of pets....Sorry, that's not rational -- that's just raw outrage.
The poster wasn't asking if the response to the video was rational; he was asking why people were more outraged by this video than by livestock slaughter videos and the like.
I'm sorry, if you ask the average person why they're outraged by this video and then point out that she's probably saving herself a lot of money in dog food, they're probably not going to be any less outraged. The thing with humans is that most of the time, we're not a purely rational species.
posted by infinitywaltz at 4:06 PM on August 31, 2010
The poster wasn't asking if the response to the video was rational; he was asking why people were more outraged by this video than by livestock slaughter videos and the like.
I'm sorry, if you ask the average person why they're outraged by this video and then point out that she's probably saving herself a lot of money in dog food, they're probably not going to be any less outraged. The thing with humans is that most of the time, we're not a purely rational species.
posted by infinitywaltz at 4:06 PM on August 31, 2010
Honestly, it's because of 4chan. Any videos like this that you can think of in the near past that have gotten this sort of crazy response, look it up, I can guarantee 4chan got wind of it and dispensed justice - in the process getting mainsteam news in tow.
posted by InsanePenguin at 4:06 PM on August 31, 2010
posted by InsanePenguin at 4:06 PM on August 31, 2010
I haven't watched the video (and won't), but from slightly different place, young people murdering animals is a huge boogeyman in Japan. I don't have numbers, or links, but supposedly mutilation/killing of animals by young people is a pretty significant indicator of the potential for massive transgressions (up to and including murder) as an adult. In Japan, the most famous case involved a kid who graduated from killing cats (as in, a lot of them) to beheading a nine year old girl. Due to his age (something like 14) at the time, he went into juvenile custody, and upon reaching 20 was released. Since the crime occurred when he was a minor, his name was never released, and his records are sealed, which makes a good number of people pretty uneasy. At least in Japan, people equate murder of animals by young people as a harbinger of much, much worse things to come.
posted by Ghidorah at 5:04 PM on August 31, 2010
posted by Ghidorah at 5:04 PM on August 31, 2010
She's in Bosnia or someplace close. People who drown unwanted animals, usually, put them in a sack, and the sack in the water. She's tossing them, like she's going to win a prize for the longest throw. Unholy glee is the expression.
But I wonder if it's legit.
posted by Ideefixe at 5:32 PM on August 31, 2010
But I wonder if it's legit.
posted by Ideefixe at 5:32 PM on August 31, 2010
Best answer: Most pet-type animals exist to be loved. At least, that is the child-like response many people have towards them. Unlike a cow or a baby seal, the pets exist in our human world, and are directly in our care. We are supposed to show our good side towards them, and if we don't, then it is an unnecessary cruelty that reflects back upon our morals. Or something like that.
Baby seals exist in the natural world, there is a layer of abstraction there. Should we be outraged at videos of sea lions eating penguins? OMG THE SEA LION WASN'T EVEN THAT HUNGRY. Cows exist to provide food. That's just the way it is. You shouldn't be mean to cows for no reason, but killing them as part of the deal is necessary and accepted, even if people wouldn't want to do the job themselves. I don't want to wade knee deep in sewage all day either, but that doesn't mean that I don't approve of the whole idea of sewer systems, and so if the wading job has to exist, well, I hope it's safe and well-compensated. Videos of some nut doing the job in some gross way is horrible but doesn't really reflect back on the whole concept of plumbing.
Then there is also a factor of "what do you want me to do?" Cows are being killed cruelly? Yeah they should be more humane about it. Bullfighting seems cruel to me too, but the stadiums full of Spaniards seem to like it. Maybe you should talk to them? Hard to say where my culture stops and someone else's starts. Animal testing, that looks bad. Maybe you should go talk to your congressman? Killing monkeys for makeup, that's bad, but killing kittens for cancer? Hm it seems like a tough line to draw. Is it okay to kill mice? Can I still kill bugs? What's your stance on abortion out of curiosity? Etc.
But an individual person making a detestable moral choice, being murderously cruel to someone's pet or some other animal, for no other reason than to be cruel? Oh fuck no, if I were there I would step forward and put an end to that shit. It's not really about the animal, it's about the human.
posted by fleacircus at 5:37 PM on August 31, 2010 [2 favorites]
Baby seals exist in the natural world, there is a layer of abstraction there. Should we be outraged at videos of sea lions eating penguins? OMG THE SEA LION WASN'T EVEN THAT HUNGRY. Cows exist to provide food. That's just the way it is. You shouldn't be mean to cows for no reason, but killing them as part of the deal is necessary and accepted, even if people wouldn't want to do the job themselves. I don't want to wade knee deep in sewage all day either, but that doesn't mean that I don't approve of the whole idea of sewer systems, and so if the wading job has to exist, well, I hope it's safe and well-compensated. Videos of some nut doing the job in some gross way is horrible but doesn't really reflect back on the whole concept of plumbing.
Then there is also a factor of "what do you want me to do?" Cows are being killed cruelly? Yeah they should be more humane about it. Bullfighting seems cruel to me too, but the stadiums full of Spaniards seem to like it. Maybe you should talk to them? Hard to say where my culture stops and someone else's starts. Animal testing, that looks bad. Maybe you should go talk to your congressman? Killing monkeys for makeup, that's bad, but killing kittens for cancer? Hm it seems like a tough line to draw. Is it okay to kill mice? Can I still kill bugs? What's your stance on abortion out of curiosity? Etc.
But an individual person making a detestable moral choice, being murderously cruel to someone's pet or some other animal, for no other reason than to be cruel? Oh fuck no, if I were there I would step forward and put an end to that shit. It's not really about the animal, it's about the human.
posted by fleacircus at 5:37 PM on August 31, 2010 [2 favorites]
Best answer: For the record, I can think of several other instances where someone shared a video of them hurting an animal, resulting in outrage and mainstream media coverage.
To answer your specific question, I think it's a "mundanity of evil" thing that upsets people, which kind of ties into infinitywaltz's point. If you're raised to believe man has dominion over animals and that they don't think or feel, you don't really make the connection between the steak on your plate and the cow in the field. And even if you do, that's what they were raised for, right?
On the other hand, people do feel very protective about their pets, and dogs in particular. On the commentary for one of his films (I can't remember if it's "Snatch" or "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels"), Guy Ritchie points out that the main bad guy kills tons of people, but it isn't until you make him abuse a dog that an audience really hates him.
posted by lhall at 5:43 PM on August 31, 2010
To answer your specific question, I think it's a "mundanity of evil" thing that upsets people, which kind of ties into infinitywaltz's point. If you're raised to believe man has dominion over animals and that they don't think or feel, you don't really make the connection between the steak on your plate and the cow in the field. And even if you do, that's what they were raised for, right?
On the other hand, people do feel very protective about their pets, and dogs in particular. On the commentary for one of his films (I can't remember if it's "Snatch" or "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels"), Guy Ritchie points out that the main bad guy kills tons of people, but it isn't until you make him abuse a dog that an audience really hates him.
posted by lhall at 5:43 PM on August 31, 2010
Also for the record, since this is all attached to my username, I don't feel that way about steaks or the animals they come from, myself.
posted by lhall at 5:57 PM on August 31, 2010
posted by lhall at 5:57 PM on August 31, 2010
I don't have an answer, but I'd like to point out that there are a lot of people in this thread talking as if they've seen the video describing her gleeful expression and so on. You don't really see her face for more than a split second. She could be smiling or grimacing in effort. She makes several vocalizations, but I know so little Bosnian that I can't tell if she's even saying anything or not, though one of the vocalizations is a (to my ears) possibly sardonic, "whee." She's wearing a glove for the purpose. It's on liveleak if anyone cares to see what they're commenting on. It's not very graphic.
To my intuition the video seems hoaxy. The sound of the puppies seems wrong for the proximity sometimes, and by the time anything is in the air it's sort of conspicuously unidentifiable. But my point is that even people who think they're being level-headed about thinking about this are projecting, which is probably to be expected. I don't know how you can get an answer to this. For the record, I don't understand why this particular video is making the rounds either.
posted by cmoj at 7:29 PM on August 31, 2010
To my intuition the video seems hoaxy. The sound of the puppies seems wrong for the proximity sometimes, and by the time anything is in the air it's sort of conspicuously unidentifiable. But my point is that even people who think they're being level-headed about thinking about this are projecting, which is probably to be expected. I don't know how you can get an answer to this. For the record, I don't understand why this particular video is making the rounds either.
posted by cmoj at 7:29 PM on August 31, 2010
Response by poster: Thank you for your extremely thoughtful, considered, and thought-provoking answers, everyone. A lot of them would not have occurred to me, and you all gave me a lot to mull over.
From reading the thread, I think I have come to an answer I am satisfied with, which is:
-It's easier to focus on seeking out/punishing one individual, than it is to contemplate the idea of seeking out/punishing huge groups and networks of people, or changing entire industries.
-To many people, she didn't seem to have "rational" purposes for doing what she did other than for enjoyment.
-There are things that "we" (Westerners) do purely for enjoyment that may be violent to animals. This is not one of the things that "we" do. There is a sense of normalcy around the things that "we" do due to tradition. There is no tradition of doing what this girl did, so no sense of normalcy for us.
I have marked the answers that led me to this conclusion as "best," even if some of them conflict or conflict partly with this conclusion, but all the answers in the thread have helped me to think I understand this phenomenon better. I appreciate it very much.
posted by Ashley801 at 9:31 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
From reading the thread, I think I have come to an answer I am satisfied with, which is:
-It's easier to focus on seeking out/punishing one individual, than it is to contemplate the idea of seeking out/punishing huge groups and networks of people, or changing entire industries.
-To many people, she didn't seem to have "rational" purposes for doing what she did other than for enjoyment.
-There are things that "we" (Westerners) do purely for enjoyment that may be violent to animals. This is not one of the things that "we" do. There is a sense of normalcy around the things that "we" do due to tradition. There is no tradition of doing what this girl did, so no sense of normalcy for us.
I have marked the answers that led me to this conclusion as "best," even if some of them conflict or conflict partly with this conclusion, but all the answers in the thread have helped me to think I understand this phenomenon better. I appreciate it very much.
posted by Ashley801 at 9:31 PM on August 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
Stumbled on this old thread. Just FYI, this whole situation repeated itself last month, except this time in China, with the animals being cute, fuzzy rabbits, and the method of death being crushing (which itself seems to follow from a previous incident where a woman crushed a kitten). It's pretty sickening (some of the images show splattered rabbit, so the faint-hearted and animal loving should beware) and there was a huge fuss raised by Chinese internet bloggers. As phunniemee points out, it caused such a stir probably because:
1. Unique premise: rabbits crushed to death
2. It's a girl.
3. They are rabbits. An animal that is usually loved by humans.
4. She videotaped it (in an apparent attempt to make money and no doubt get a rise out of people).
Chinese bloggers human flesh-searched her, tracked down her info, and threatened her. She apparently was from a wealthy family and issued an apology. There are some twists and turns about whether her apology was sincere and what the actual motive was for doing the videos (according to her, she was put up to it by some gang who profited from selling the recordings as a fetish video).
Basically, we can conclude that more animal snuff films will be made in the future and plenty more people will be equally outraged at them, even as larger issues of animal (and human) cruelty still exist around the world. That's just how it goes.
posted by jng at 1:17 PM on December 28, 2010
1. Unique premise: rabbits crushed to death
2. It's a girl.
3. They are rabbits. An animal that is usually loved by humans.
4. She videotaped it (in an apparent attempt to make money and no doubt get a rise out of people).
Chinese bloggers human flesh-searched her, tracked down her info, and threatened her. She apparently was from a wealthy family and issued an apology. There are some twists and turns about whether her apology was sincere and what the actual motive was for doing the videos (according to her, she was put up to it by some gang who profited from selling the recordings as a fetish video).
Basically, we can conclude that more animal snuff films will be made in the future and plenty more people will be equally outraged at them, even as larger issues of animal (and human) cruelty still exist around the world. That's just how it goes.
posted by jng at 1:17 PM on December 28, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by infinitywaltz at 12:49 PM on August 31, 2010 [6 favorites]