Then it sounds as though your personality is simply not empathetic or sympathetic and that you have very little feeling for anything beyond your immediate world. Which doesn’t make you a sociopath or dangerous or evil; that’s just the way you are, which is fine. Everyone’s different.
<Nitpick> Jamal Lewis is going to jail…</nitpick>
As for me, I’m not happy when someone dies, but it doesn’t make me sad. I refuse to play the death game because I don’t feel it’s appropriate, but I don’t care that others feel differently.
Errrr… Death POOL… not death game…
People aren’t reacting because Reeve was a celebrity, Trunk. They’re reacting because of the way he handled himself after that terrible accident. He showed amazing dignity and a fighting spirit. I’ll admit that as an actor, I found him to be “meh.” But as fellow human being my respect for him increased tenfold. In other words, it wasn’t his celebrity that captured people’s hearts, but rather his humanity. I mourned Ryan White for the exact same reasons.
I’m saddened that they both died so young and so tragically.
If you can’t understand why people feel sad, then there’s very little I can say to help you understand. You simply cannot teach empathy. However, I will suggest that you accept that YOUR view of reality is not everyone’s view.
FWIW, while you simply can’t understand why people would mourn a mere celebrity, I am scratching my head wondering why it bothers you so much that people feel sad over something that you don’t. That’s a bit egocentric, no?
Nor do I play the Dead Pool.
That seems to me to be taking delight in it or something, or at least an interest in it, which I can’t bring myself to do.
yes, I did mean “Jamal Lewis”.
You’re mostly right. It’s not that I’m not sympathetic or empathetic. It’s that I’m not sympathetic or empathetic outside my immediate world. But, my immediate world might consist of 50 people I work with, 50 neighbors, 50 family members, and a score of friends.
What it doesn’t extend to is people I only have ever seen on a screen.
Nothing wrong with that, it’s just the way you are, and doesn’t hurt anyone else. Everyone has different “buttons.”
For instance, I read a news story last week about four teenagers who were killed in a car accident (for which they were totally blameless), and I felt a pang of, “Oh, those poor kids, their poor families.” I didn’t burst into tears or let it ruin my day, but I did (and do now) feel badly about it, in a small way.
Yes, I was somewhat saddened by his death, because he showed such a zest for living; it wasn’t the same level of sadness that I feel when a loved one dies. It’s not like there’s only “sad” and “not sad”. There are degrees of sadness. Same with my loved ones. I’m guessing that when one of my hubby’s parents dies, I’ll be sad; but probably not as sad as I was when my parents died. More than anything, I’ll be sad for my husband, and for the parent that is left without a spouse.
I would take exception with this statement, though:
I don’t think horseback riding is a “silly rich boy game” at all. My husband’s first wife raised competition horses, rode and jumped them in competitions. They were far from rich. It was the luck of the draw that she wa never seriously injured. People who are not rich and do have familial responsibilities do things every day that are more risky than horseback riding. For instance, the chances of being seriously injured or killed in an auto accident are no doubt much higher than the chances of being injured/killed in a horseback riding accident, but people with familial responsibilities drive every day. They also fly airplanes, bungee jump, parachute and surf. Are you suggesting that people with familial responsibilities should not take unnecessary risk, no matter how low the risk is? 
I think he did a lot of good as an activist. Celebrity gives you access that we little people don’t have, for better or worse.
My understanding is that there’s a certain amount of resentment toward him from some (or maybe a lot of) disabled folks that his working for spinal cord research diverted resources that could have been used elsewhere. Sounds like specious reasoning to me, but then I’m not involved in the issues.
Anyway, I’m not sad, but it’s always unfortunate when someone trying to do something that can benefit people (and having some success) is lost, as there’s never enough of that kind of person.
Not to hijack my own thread or anything. . .
No way on earth is that true. No way.
Here’s one link about brain injuries in sports.
http://www.wipss.com/WIPSS_sport_stats03.htm
search around google a bit. It’s hard to find statistics, but it appears clear that horseback riding is typically grouped with high-risk activities such as mountain biking and ATV riding by insurance companies. It seems to be commonly mentioned with boxing and football among head injuries from sports.
Here’s a site.
http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/116-1182/601/
with quotes such as “Buckley and colleagues concluded that the rate of hospitalisation due to falls from horses was comparable to the rate of injuries from playing rugby.”
and
“A recent examination of New Zealand recreational and adventure tourism injuries found that ‘of the commercial adventure tourism activities, horse riding and cycling were the only significant contributors to overseas visitor injuries.”
And if you don’t think horseback riding is an acitvity for the rich and idle, or at least equestrian events like what Reeve was doing, then you’re living in a cave. . .with an internet connection apparently.
It is called Recreational Greiving and I think the first HUGE example of it was when Princess Diana died.
Linky poo
In the same vein, the whole Dale Ernhart #3 window decal thing just makes me scratch my head on befuddlement. I can’t wait until miracles are attested to #3 abilities and Elvis makes a cripple girl walk.
In fairness, Christopher Reeve did alot for other causes before his accident and was always an activist. When he had his accident, he never gave up. That, too me, shows tremendous spirit and courage, not only by him, but by his wife.
He seems to have been a really nice guy, too.
I have the impression that it might be true only if you relate the sheer amount of time spent in a car (not to mention the number of people who drive vs. ride horses) to the time spent on horseback. The vast majority of Americans spend far more time in a car than riding a horse, so of course there will be more auto accidents than riding accidents when you look at it that way. It’s sort of like that statistic that (some large percent) of auto accidents occur within (some smallish number) of miles from your house - and that’s true because most people spend most of their driving time within that number of miles of their houses.
Back to un-hijacking:
Shirley - I was going to protest that Elvis was probably a better earlier example, but I’m not sure it (back then) hit the international scope of grieving that Princess Diana’s death did.
I will retract some of what I said earlier, to some extent, by saying that I don’t really understand those more “in-depth” ways of grieving the loss of a celebrity - the #3 thing, turning a trip to Graceland into a pilgrimage, etc. If someone was your absolute favorite singer/artist/writer/actor/whatever I can understand a deeper sadness than going “how awful, that’s too bad” and feeling a little downhearted about it for a few days at most, or if they had a big influence on you in impressionable childhood or something similar (say, Mr. Rogers’ assurances that he liked you helping you get through being abused as a kid). But “recreational grieving” is cheap and annoying. I’d compare it to the stereotype of the fanatical soap opera watcher who seems to believe that these are real people and would treat the actor exactly as that person’s character.
Rudolph Valentino. His 1926 death resulted in mass rioting at the funeral, and the suicide of a number of fans. I’m sure there were earlier examples, too, but Rudy just came to mind.
I’m trying to think for each generation ( say every decade) who was the person whose death shocked a nation or whatnot.
1910’s: Arch duke Ferdinand probably doesn’t count.
1920’s: Valentino
1930’s: Will Rogers? Could be a stretch.
1940’s: FDR? Jean Harlow?
1950’s: Drawing a blank
1960’s: Marilyn Monroe, JFK’s assassination, Jimi Hendrix & Jim Morrison?
1970’s: Howard Hughes? Elvis most definately.
1980: John Lennon’s murder, the Space Shuttle Explosion
1990’s: Kurt Cobain’s suicide ( a bit of a stretch) Princess Diana’s untimely death.
2000’s: Dale Ernhart, Strangely enough, the second space shuttle’s explosion seems to be forgotten.
Hey, when did you see my house? 
But seriously, as Ferret Herder pointed out, the difference is in the amount of time you spend doing things. But my point was that a lot of people who ride horseback (and even do the jumps) are not rich and idle. And any one of them could suffer the same fate as Reeves did. And my question still stands: is it your assertion that people with familial responsibilities should not engage in somewhat risky behavior? I’m not trying to pick a fight here; I’m really not. I’m only trying to clarify your stance on these things.
I respectfully kept out of those threads.
Anyone who had ever had the unfortunate experience of working with Mr. Reeve BEFORE his tragic accident can tell you he was not a particularly nice person to work with - and that is being very generous in describing him. A mutual friend who had also worked professionally with Mr. Reeve, upon first hearing of his riding accident, said, “Hmm. I guess karma works.”
I will grant that he did a lot of good AFTER the accident to help others; he was actually focused on motivating science and politicians and he did a lot of good in that respect.
I was surprised, and certainly not happy to learn he had died, but I didn’t shed any tears.
. . . Only those who hadn’t read the newspapers since 1937 . . . “What?! Jean Harlow died three years ago?!”
I was sad. You couldn’t compare it to the way I’d feel if a family member, friend, or pet died. But, yeah, I was sad.
I don’t always feel that way when celebrities die. Christopher Reeve was special somehow. Partly because I really loved the Superman movies as a kid. Even more because I was impressed with the way he handled himself after the accident. I admired the fact he always seemed so optimistic.
Then again, I play “stupid rich boy games”–so the subject of Christopher Reeve seems to pop up with about every third person who learns I ride.
[hijack]
I ride competitively. I am neither silly, nor rich, nor a boy. I’m certainly not “idle.” I won’t argue about horses being expensive–they are. However, that doesn’t mean we’re all sitting in our saddles watching our trust funds grow. A lot of riders–most riders I know–work long and hard to afford our horses and our riding. It’s a matter of priorities and sacrifices.
Yeah, it makes me sad. As I noted in the Cafe Society thread, this is really the first time a celebrity death has really affected me at all. The closest I can think of besides this were the deaths of Joe Strummer and the (unfortunately) continuing deaths of the various Ramones.
But Christopher Reeve was Superman. Bad stuff just isn’t supposed to happen to Superman. It had me feeling down all of yesterday.
I don’t understand your thinking here. Do you mean that nobody with a family or children should engage in higher-risk sports? If, according to your link, “It [horseback riding] seems to be commonly mentioned with boxing and football among head injuries from sports” then would you agree that only single childless people should box or play football? Or does horseback riding’s being a “rich boy sport” have something to do it?
I don’t think it means that at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
There are people who are really only capable of empathizing when directly faced with the suffering. According to his children, Ronald Reagan was this way - he would write poor people personal checks but didn’t care one bit about the way his policies affected poor people across the nation. They’re the people you call when you need a shoulder to cry on. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are people who are humanitarians, who can passionately care about the suffering of unnamed people half a world away, but cannot work up a tear when the neighbor’s cat dies. I fall squarely into the second category. For me, the strength of my response to another’s suffering depends on the extent and the injustice of the tragedy. Even though I live in NY (and could get lynched for saying this publicly), I responded no more to the deaths of 9/11 than the deaths that occured in Afghanistan shortly after. In fact, I was more outraged by the second, because the killing was done in my country’s name.
The people who get worked up over celebrity deaths seem to fall more in the first category. If you really empathized with strangers’ suffering, there are countless deaths every day that would sadden you. But people focus on celebrity deaths because they feel as if they know those people. Compared to others, this was not an especially tragic death. Reeves was immensely lucky to be able to become extremely rich engaged in work that is fun and frivilous. He lived a good life, and the world is barely affected by his passing. For those of us who didn’t know him or his family, what did we lose? And if you really care about the suffering of strangers, where are the tears for those who died today in Iraq, Sudan, or even in your own neighborhood? No one has enough empathy to grieve every deaths, so I’ll save mine for the particularly tragic cases.