Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
this is pretty intense stuff.
the internet, eh?
I don't care about the arguments about Haitian history that much but he really picked his fucking moment.
SUCH a cunt.
i think his argument is retarded as well, but that's secondary
LOVE how he picks apart even the posts which are like "Why not just be quiet and donate a tenner, eh pal".
rationality needs to be placed with emotion, naivety and hysterics. I don't agree with everything the guy's said, for sure, and I don't know enough about the history to comment, but him being attacked for having a response other than "thousands of people dead... sob... donate to charity... sob... the west is evil... sob" is just stupid.
that wasn't it. that's why he's getting slammed
The fact that you've admitted that you don't even know about the history means you should probably shut up
DiS can be so difficult sometimes. I'm talking about the reactions to disasters and attitudes towards those who have any other thought than 'sob' and 'donate'.
like Boris Johnson
I forget. Either way, you're wrong.
I hate the term "well balanced", but agreed: not rational - I was making a general comment. But the posts above seemed to be more angry that a response not entirely emotional or sympathetic was posted. It happens in the wake of most disasters, obviously going away from this particular case, but there's been other times on DiS that people proposing rational sensible things have been attacked, as if it's inhuman or something. It irritates me.
Anyhow, I wasn't defending this guys comments, just the general attitudes that seem to rule everything at such times.
very human and personal suffering, the general awfulness of it etc, then I might have thought differently. But she made it explicitly political and contentious. You can't expect to publish something political and contentious and not receive political and contentious responses.
pretty umambiguously has its roots in Haiti's history and place in global politics; the reason it has suffered so much is because of a history of crippling national debt imposed on it by France, and later the US and other western countries, and the legacy of this debt provides a simple and fairly uncontentious explanation for Haiti's turbulent internal politics, lack of an effective infrastructure and its peculiar environmental vulnerability based on the way its agriculture was developed.
no doubt you'll say they shouldn't have got into debt in the first place, but when Haiti declared independence, becoming the first black republic in the world (or maybe the second, i can't remember), the French imposed crippling economic sanctions on the fledgling nation which it couldn't have contested without putting its existence and the lives of its citizens in danger.
The effect of the post-colonial history and politics of Haiti are far, far less contentious than they are of most other former colonies and to ignore Haiti's history and politics, in the context of this disaster, is to do a crass disservice to the reasons why this disaster has been even worse than most natural disasters in the developing world; in this case the human suffering is too intimately connected to history and politics for it to be ignored.
have you read Ayn Rand? You'd adore her.
Either you have no idea who Ayn Rand was, or you're making a comparison based on absolutely nothing. I really couldn't be much further away if I tried.
and general individualist attitude to most things. and, come now, you're a big fan of rationality, do you really think i'd compare you to something i didn't know - that would hardly be rational.
I'm probably the least individualist person ever. I despise it. As I said, I'm entirely statist. Eww, I feel ill now.
I've been half expecting Arcade Fire to put a song out for Haiti ....