41 ms·

More can always be done. Confining your reaction to the emotional is uninformative and exactly the sort of panic that our media creates and is creating about t

More can always be done. Confining your reaction to the emotional is uninformative and exactly the sort of panic that our media creates and is creating about this event. If you can't slip smoothly from being sad about the death and destruction to analyzing the disaster response dispassionately, that's your problem.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
charlief 16y ago
I think a comprehensive discussion includes the large moral impact: causalities from tsunami. I believe the article was pretty apathetic to this matter, and the high-number of causalities may conflict with the premise that everything went as planned. You said more can always be done, but I would like to know what. I think it is pretty self-righteous to prioritize our media-distortion matters over this question. Perhaps I had poor choice of words, but I believe this does not entirely invalidate my point.
- Helianthus16 16y ago
  This post as a whole is not a comprehensive discussion of the quake. It is explicitly about the media distortion of the event. If your point is valid it remains off-topic. Additionally, your language indicates you're still not grasping the problem we are examining. There is no "premise that everything went as planned." That is absolutely not his point at all. His point is that there is a hugely complex system that performed admirably, that emergency relief systems are a war against the unexpected. I think it's pretty self-righteous to prioritize the decision-making that the Japanese will take care of on their over examining and controlling our own reactions, reactions based on a poor understanding of the emergency response and hysterical reporting.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - Helianthus16 16y ago
      >I agree absolutely, but did this hugely complex system really perform admirably in the case of the tsunami? Yes. I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but once again, your terminology indicates you're not grasping the problem. There is no perfect system, there will always be flaws. In what sense is the system worthy of no admiration? Because that is what you are asking for: you're saying that a viewpoint that regards the loss of tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands as praiseworthy as somehow "apathetic" when really it's just realistic: things could have been much worse.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

charlief 16y ago

I think a comprehensive discussion includes the large moral impact: causalities from tsunami. I believe the article was pretty apathetic to this matter, and the high-number of causalities may conflict with the premise that everything went as planned. You said more can always be done, but I would like to know what. I think it is pretty self-righteous to prioritize our media-distortion matters over this question. Perhaps I had poor choice of words, but I believe this does not entirely invalidate my point.

Helianthus16 16y ago
This post as a whole is not a comprehensive discussion of the quake. It is explicitly about the media distortion of the event. If your point is valid it remains off-topic. Additionally, your language indicates you're still not grasping the problem we are examining. There is no "premise that everything went as planned." That is absolutely not his point at all. His point is that there is a hugely complex system that performed admirably, that emergency relief systems are a war against the unexpected. I think it's pretty self-righteous to prioritize the decision-making that the Japanese will take care of on their over examining and controlling our own reactions, reactions based on a poor understanding of the emergency response and hysterical reporting.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - Helianthus16 16y ago
    >I agree absolutely, but did this hugely complex system really perform admirably in the case of the tsunami? Yes. I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but once again, your terminology indicates you're not grasping the problem. There is no perfect system, there will always be flaws. In what sense is the system worthy of no admiration? Because that is what you are asking for: you're saying that a viewpoint that regards the loss of tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands as praiseworthy as somehow "apathetic" when really it's just realistic: things could have been much worse.