My gorge rises.

[flewellyn]

Disasters like Hurricane Katrina can bring out the best in humanity. Apparently, they can also bring out the worst.

I found this on the blogosphere, on the blog of an Objectivist (big surprise). I cannot believe these people dare call themselves human.

“It seems to me that the poor should have had the EASIEST time leaving. They don't need to pay for an extended leave from their home, they could have just packed a few belongings and walked away to start over somewhere else. What did they have to lose?

When the wealthy evacuate, they leave behind nice houses, expensive cars, possibly pets that they treat as members of the family, valuable jewelry, family heirlooms, etc. This makes it emotionally difficult for wealthy people to leave. But by definition, the poor do not have this burden: they either rent their homes, or they are in public housing; their cars are practically junk anyway; and they don't have any valuable possessions. This is what it means to be poor. These people could just pick up their few belongings, buy a one-way bus ticket to any city and be poor there. Supposing they even had jobs in NO, it's not like minimum wage jobs are hard to come by.”

link

Edit: I should point out that the above is a comment in that blog, not by the blogger herself. I don't know what that says about her regular readers, though, since such comments were not rare...

Comments

[motodraconis.livejournal.com]

Good grief!

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

So poor people don't value their homes or possessions? They don't care about uprooting their kids from school, or losing their jobs?

Some people just want a good kicking.

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

I'm sure the quoted person has just never been poor. I mean, thinking that the poor have no beloved pets? Whatever.

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

Just to be clear, the person you quoted was the blogger on that site, but someone commenting in her blog, much as I'm doing here.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I caught that. I'll edit the post.

[xuincherguixe.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that people this stupid probably don't have a developed enough brain to feel pain, so it won't be that big a deal when I chop them into little pieces with my axe.

^_^

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

was NOT.

Sigh.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I definitely think pure logic supports this. A is A, and stupid is stupid.

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

One also has to wonder, I guess, about the philosophies of those who want to indulge in random violence and chop people they disagree with into little pieces.

What is it that suggests that the most appropriate solution to your disagreement is killing those you dislike or disagree with?

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Give cherrypep a break, she's faced a lot of stupid shit.

I know that she would not actually kill anyone.

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

Sorry.

I'm just soooooo tired of over-the-top reactions to admittedly thoughtless statements. Let's get a grip: explaining how you'd like to hurt someone is just not the right response to their statements you disagree with, even if you'd never actually do it if you were suddenly in the same room with them. It isn't that they don't care or wouldn't lift a finger to save a life (though it may be that a few people are like that), it's just that in the face of helplessness to do much about it or feel the kind of emotion that one is "supposed" to feel for victims of disaster, they look for ways to justify their numbness, without falling into despair.

Anyway, I've ranted enough for one day, I guess. :(

[xuincherguixe.livejournal.com]

That and I can always use an excuse to cut up people with an axe. Murder is good excersize!

[xuincherguixe.livejournal.com]

I'm not actually in any way serious about the violence. A lot of what I say is just over the top nonesense that's supposed to be a joke.

It causes a lot of confusion I suspect.

[cherrypep.livejournal.com]

The statements Flew quoted were not "thoughtless".

Calling a statement thoughtless is reasonable when it is based on inadequate evidence, perhaps made in the absence of necessary information, ill-researched or off the top of the head.

These statements are none of the above. They are considered. They are purposeful. And they are not acceptable.

Me, I'm not a violent person (upon my oath I am not a violent man... ha), but I have read far, far too much self-aggrandizing shit in the last few weeks. I'm not happy with any of it. The New Orleans situation is becoming a massive demonstration of something with which I am honestly terribly, terribly uncomfortable, and quite frankly it is making me very twitchy indeed. That is of course a matter of perception.

As this bugs you, well, I'm a reasonable person. I don't want to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I'll delete my comment (done). I'd recommend you ignore my postings, but unfortunately I don't see an LJ option for that, so you may have to get Flew to ban me from his LJ if you have further problems with my unreasonable input. I'll try to avoid posting anywhere near you in future, but as a precaution you might want to ban me from any communities, etc, that you own... just so I know.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

I won't be banning you from here. I value your contributions. I also value randallsquared's contributions.

So, no snarking at each other, okay?

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

I thought as much, but it's hard to tell, in text, how seriously someone wants to be taken. :)

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

Yes, suh. :)

[achanchinou.livejournal.com]

It does, in fact, especially in people such as me who have a tendancy (based on past experience and personal beliefs) to assume something said in anger is meant as much, if not more than, something said normally. We could delve into psychological profiling here, but that would further complicate matters, and isn't worth the time.

I think it's probably a bit like over reacting, except that in many cases it's by choice or by simple virtue of having chosen really poor wording or being the sort of person who cannot avoid saying things targeted to hurt, infuriate or otherwise demean during reactions. I'm one of those people who, when angry, do what I would do normally and vice versa. I might be MORE likely to say what I truly think when mad but I still wouldn't be saying things I didn't mean or think.

If that makes sense.

There's some level of saything things as a joke, but in text that comes across really really really poorly and barring obvious humor content or notation to such, a hugelot of folks can't tell the difference and wind up thinking the commentor is some sort of wild-eyed insane blowhard or something.

[bear-foot.livejournal.com]

wtf:... i also saw on IRC.. "the media are ignoring the real tradgedy, the people who lost homes/business who are staying at hotels"... guess the dead poor dont count :(

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Yes you do TOO belong.

And don't be defriending me over this, okay?

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

The Cato Institutute's ideas might work okay if we each lived on our own island and had our own tank (I went to a conference they put on about 15 years ago and enjoyed it--they had good speakers) but once someone starts quoting the Heritage Foundation I realize that we're not likely to have a lot of common ground.

But yes: ick. The writer obviously has no clue what it's like to be poor and has seen too many movies.

[dcayn.livejournal.com]

Yeah, ok. The wealthy leave behind all their fancy cars, their overpriced paintings of flowers, and their stupid miniature figurines lined on the shelves of their overpriced display units, but did they even appreciate the value of those things? My guess is probably not. All too many rich people take for granted the nice things they have. Many of them are born into money and never had to work for what they have.

The poor work ten times harder for their belongings and have ten times less to show for it, but are just happy they have the things they need to survive. It is the poor who will have to work twenty times harder to gain even a shred of what they once had, but it will never be the same. Yes, they have the chance for regrowth, but for many of them it has taken their entire lives to get where they were before Katrina deprived them of it.

Don't get me wrong, there are many wealthy people who have worked very hard for their money; my mother being one of them. What matters is the appreciation of the lifestyle they have been afforded. I'm touched by the outpouring of people doing kind things like donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to charter a plane and evacuate those left with nothing to homes waiting for them to give them a fresh start in a new place.

The wealthy are given a bad name by those that throw their weight and wallet around, but they're saved by the kindness of those that do something worthwhile with what they have; they make a difference.

I had a lot more to say in continuation of my thoughts, but my little mite has awoken and it's time to go be the richest person alive.. to be a momma.

leave me my illusions

[spooke.livejournal.com]

...I think my eyeballs are broken. I thought it said the poor would have an easier time leaving than the rich.

Re: leave me my illusions

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Sorry, Spooke, your eyes are working.

I wish to Dog they weren't.

[geekwoman.livejournal.com]

Scary that some folks actually believe this kind of rubbish. *Sigh*

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Scarier still that some of them are in charge of the US.

[geekwoman.livejournal.com]

Yep. Sad but true.