If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"john smith" wrote in message
Many of the victims are to blame. Doesn't it give you pause when you learn the extent to which the people left there are behaving in a way *opposite* to what you would do or expect others to do? Using a natural disaster as an opportunity to plunder and rape and attack those that are trying to help is *exactly* what you should expect from people who have socially evolved over decades to live off the efforts of others. It isn't politically correct to say this but most of the people carting off alcohol and TV sets instead of essential supplies have lived as wards of the welfare state, and quite happily so, for their entire lives. From this mornings newspaper... (Read the parts about 20% saying they would stay in their homes during any storm.) Sure. I might have been one of them. Although probably not in New Orleans. Maybe you too. But I would wouldn't be looting stores or whining about the government's failure to protect me from my own stupidity. I'd be responding the way I would expect myself to in an emergency. To the best of my abilities. And, assuming I survived, rethinking my strategy for next time. A sizable percentage of the people who remained look forward to capitalizing on this sort of thing. The government is not my nanny. moo |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Happy Dog" wrote in message
... Many of the victims are to blame. Doesn't it give you pause when you learn the extent to which the people left there are behaving in a way *opposite* to what you would do or expect others to do? Using a natural disaster as an opportunity to plunder and rape and attack those that are trying to help is *exactly* what you should expect from people who have socially evolved over decades to live off the efforts of others. "Many" of the victims are to blame? *How* many have engaged in the predatory violence you refer to? Even one in a hundred? If so, what is your evidence? If you have none, then how *dare* you characterize the behavior of a tiny minority as though it were typical of the larger group? That is the *essence* of pernicious sterotyping. It isn't politically correct to say this but most of the people carting off alcohol and TV sets instead of essential supplies have lived as wards of the welfare state, and quite happily so, for their entire lives. What is incorrect--not just politically, but also morally, logically, and intellectually--is to make accusatory claims that are founded on nothing but derogatory stereotypes, feeling no obligation to find or present supporting evidence, and yet to misrepresent those assertions as established fact, both in your own mind and in your rhetoric. What is, in fact, morally and intellectually *bankrupt* is for a "personal responsibility" advocate to hide under a hood of anonymity to avoid taking any personal responsibility for his unfounded public accusations against his favorite scapegoats. --Gary |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"gregg" wrote: Get a grip, Matt. CNN/Fox/NBC would *love* some white folks on a rooftop. Most of their audience is white, and people love to watch stories about people like themselves; it's money in the bank for tv news. Actually I think you are wrong. What the media want is the biggest viewership. They'll do anything to get that. Fomenting a notion of racism is a great way to get an audience. So you, as well, believe that the tv networks conspired to conceal the presence of stranded white victims? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote:
Majority, yes, 100%, no. I've not seen a white or Hispanic person yet shown on a roof waiting. I haven't watched TV in years. I've been getting my visual input from the AP feed. That seems to be more balanced than what you describe. George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Gary, although you are correct and your arguments very well stated, I'm sure you realize that you will not change the minds of those whose view of reality is clouded by their racism. Still, I think it is important to not let such fools have the only word here. I am pleased that you have entered the fray. The level of disconnect from reality of a handful of posters here is astounding. They see a hundred looters and can not dissociate them from the 50+ thousand law abiding residents who have done exactly as instructed through five days of incredible hardship. "Gary Drescher" wrote: "Happy Dog" wrote in message . .. Many of the victims are to blame. Doesn't it give you pause when you learn the extent to which the people left there are behaving in a way *opposite* to what you would do or expect others to do? Using a natural disaster as an opportunity to plunder and rape and attack those that are trying to help is *exactly* what you should expect from people who have socially evolved over decades to live off the efforts of others. "Many" of the victims are to blame? *How* many have engaged in the predatory violence you refer to? Even one in a hundred? If so, what is your evidence? If you have none, then how *dare* you characterize the behavior of a tiny minority as though it were typical of the larger group? That is the *essence* of pernicious sterotyping. It isn't politically correct to say this but most of the people carting off alcohol and TV sets instead of essential supplies have lived as wards of the welfare state, and quite happily so, for their entire lives. What is incorrect--not just politically, but also morally, logically, and intellectually--is to make accusatory claims that are founded on nothing but derogatory stereotypes, feeling no obligation to find or present supporting evidence, and yet to misrepresent those assertions as established fact, both in your own mind and in your rhetoric. What is, in fact, morally and intellectually *bankrupt* is for a "personal responsibility" advocate to hide under a hood of anonymity to avoid taking any personal responsibility for his unfounded public accusations against his favorite scapegoats. --Gary |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote:
Yes, that is what the liberal media would have you believe and that is why you mainly see black people on the roofs. The video you speak of is pooled video from a photo journalist in a helicopter flying around taking pictures of people being plucked from rooftops. If that video shows mostly blacks being plucked from the rooftops it is because most of the people being plucked from the rooftops are black, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Furthermore, I've seen a significant number of white people being plucked from the rooftops so your conspiracy theory is nothing but more of your inane racist bull****. If you really believe that what you are seeing on TV from the areas devastated by Katrina is representative, then I feel very sorry for you as you have been duped to the highest degree. The fellow who killfiled you earlier today was correct, you are a bigoted idiot! In truth, the TV news coverage has been quite balanced in showing the devastation and the recovery efforts in the city of New Orleans and points west such as Waveland, Gulfport, and Biloxi. The reason you see lots of people being plucked from the rooftops in New Orleans is because news agencies naturally seek dramatic visuals. Despite a proclivity for showing dramatic visuals, the coverage has been quite balanced and complete. If one good thing has emerged from this thread, it is the emergence of previously quite posters who have effectively refuted a handful of newsgroup idiots, such as you, whose bigotry clouds their reason. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Gary, it is refreshing to see normally quite posters, such a you, intelligently rebutting a handful of demonstrably narrow-minded and bigoted talking heads. "Gary Drescher" wrote: Yes. It's important--and, often, ultimately effective--to speak out against evil, even if the direct targets of your speech are unlikely to be persuaded. I've never had any illusion about what lurks just beneath the public-relations veneer of "compassionate conservatism", so I'm not surprised to see the giddy orgy of self-righteous disparagement here (and elsewhere) that's being directed against the black underclass in the wake of the hurricane's devastation; the right wing's ascendancy has led to some unusually unguarded commentary. I do hope and expect, though, that as the inhumane victim-blaming cruelty of the right-wing agenda makes itself more boldly visible, their "let them eat cake" sentiment toward compatriots in a dire emergency will prove sufficiently shocking and revolting to most people to create a political turning point. --Gary |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
Many of the victims are to blame. Doesn't it give you pause when you learn the extent to which the people left there are behaving in a way *opposite* to what you would do or expect others to do? Using a natural disaster as an opportunity to plunder and rape and attack those that are trying to help is *exactly* what you should expect from people who have socially evolved over decades to live off the efforts of others. "Many" of the victims are to blame? *How* many have engaged in the predatory violence you refer to? Even one in a hundred? If so, what is your evidence? Evidence? Please. It's a veritable war zone. Res ipsa loquitor. If you have none, then how *dare* you Inherent bravery. I'm touched you noticed... characterize the behavior of a tiny minority as though it were typical of the larger group? That is the *essence* of pernicious sterotyping. It isn't politically correct to say this but most of the people carting off alcohol and TV sets instead of essential supplies have lived as wards of the welfare state, and quite happily so, for their entire lives. What is incorrect--not just politically, but also morally, logically, and intellectually--is to make accusatory claims that are founded on nothing but derogatory stereotypes, feeling no obligation to find or present supporting evidence, and yet to misrepresent those assertions as established fact, both in your own mind and in your rhetoric. What is, in fact, morally and intellectually *bankrupt* is for a "personal responsibility" advocate to hide under a hood of anonymity to avoid taking any personal responsibility for his unfounded public accusations against his favorite scapegoats. Comment: Make up your mind. Maybe I'm not so daring after all. And, I post from an ISP. I'm not anonymous. But I do understand that you feel that something should be done about people like me. My opinions are worth exactly what you pay. But they're usually correct. The "derogatory stereotypes" are a figment you defend. To opine that many victims are not masters of their demise or that the social conditions which are making relief efforts a secondary concern are mostly the fault of a government that doesn't care enough is stupid. moo The rules of engagement are hard to enforce, when the illusion of conflict meets the illusion of force. G. Downey |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote: "George Patterson" wrote in message news:_1sSe.4062$aG.3295@trndny01... Blanche wrote: You are insensitive and arrogant. and probably too stupid to listen to you. Thanks for trying. Yes. It's important--and, often, ultimately effective--to speak out against evil, even if the direct targets of your speech are unlikely to be persuaded. I've never had any illusion about what lurks just beneath the public-relations veneer of "compassionate conservatism", so I'm not surprised to see the giddy orgy of self-righteous disparagement here (and elsewhere) that's being directed against the black underclass in the wake of the hurricane's devastation; the right wing's ascendancy has led to some unusually unguarded commentary. I do hope and expect, though, that as the inhumane victim-blaming cruelty of the right-wing agenda makes itself more boldly visible, their "let them eat cake" sentiment toward compatriots in a dire emergency will prove sufficiently shocking and revolting to most people to create a political turning point. Personally, I find it just as offensive to suggest a secret 'agenda' by a "compassionate conservative" conspiracy as it is to suggest an opposite 'agenda' by a "liberal media." There are conservative racists, and there are liberal racists. I don't like and don't agree with either kind. I don't think you can assume that someone who is a "conservative" on some issues is a racist, any more than you can assume that someone who is a "liberal" on some issues is not. Most people are far more complex than that. While I see much of the media being intent on stirring up controversy in order to increase viewership, I do not think that it is entirely because of liberal bias. Rather, playing the race card is worth big money, and the news media love getting people to kill each other for fun and profit (the fun and profit of the news media, of course). In this regard, CNN Asia has been downright evenhanded compared to BBC World, which has been sickening. To be honest, the most balanced reporting around here has been coming from the communist Chinese.... I really don't get the bit about the media showing only black people on rooftops. Even BBC has been showing people of all types on rooftops, getting rescued, looting, etc. I also don't get the media complaints of the slowness of the response. The first camera crews on the scene showed Coast Guard helicopters rescuing people, National Guardsmen, police, and fire crews in the center of New Orleans, etc. Obviously all of these emergency workers managed to get there before the news media did. If I was sitting in a pool of filthy water without food, fresh water, or medical aid, no contact with the outside world and dead bodies floating around me, completely unaware of conditions in the rest of the city and the rescue efforts being made there, and some reporter came up and said no one was coming to help and then turned on the camera and asked me if I was satisfied with the speed of relief, I probably would give the reporter just the answer he was looking for. Surprise, surprise. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:IQNSe.7577$aG.5517@trndny01... Matt Whiting wrote: Majority, yes, 100%, no. I've not seen a white or Hispanic person yet shown on a roof waiting. I haven't watched TV in years. I've been getting my visual input from the AP feed. That seems to be more balanced than what you describe. *Groan.* I know so few people who don't watch TV. I watch it a bit when I travel. But I yanked my cable on 9/12/1. I don't know that it's gotten more juvenile. Maybe it's just weaning. But I read the CNN website. And, the odd time I see the TV version, I note that it expands the bit of content on the website into an hour of tawdry emotion laden wanking. lm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hurricane | AllanStern | Military Aviation | 1 | September 16th 04 06:42 PM |
GA Airport center for Charley relief | Bob Chilcoat | Piloting | 4 | August 19th 04 04:04 PM |
Classic RAS posts: Chip Bearden and "pilot relief" | Eric Greenwell | Soaring | 5 | February 20th 04 03:59 AM |
GOP Kills $100 million relief to GA companies hurt by 9/11 airspace restrictions | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 21 | January 31st 04 02:21 AM |
Hurricane accident Northumberland, UK | Jim Corbett | Military Aviation | 1 | December 29th 03 08:32 PM |