https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/shahzada-suleman-dawood-titanic-sub-imploded-b2362670.html
Azmeh Dawood told NBC News that her nephew only agreed to go on the expedition because it was important to his father
Azmeh Dawood told NBC News that her nephew only agreed to go on the expedition because it was important to his father
This whole "rich people's problem" newscycle is about as newsworthy as the fact that I had eggplant parmesean for dinner.
I'll give you a counterpoint, much as I also don't care.
Usually a story like this would be incredibly sad. Similar stories about refugee ships sinking are awful and heartbreaking.
Most of this story is about rich people who signed up to do a phenomenally stupid thing with an incredibly, comically terrible person in charge. It's actually more funny than tragic, and so people are able to read the story without feeling terrible after.
Caveat: I feel awful for this kid. Only sympathetic character I've seen so far.
Strangely, I consider both events - the submarine and the refugees - to be equally heartbreaking, in the sense that both are pointless losses of life that could have been avoided.
However, I also consider both events to be equally stupid - billionaires being cocky stupid, and the refugees being desperate stupid; the kind of stupid wherein we make bad decisions with likely bad outcomes, on the gamble that it'll work.
Looking at it from a more emotional standpoint, I think I might be biased in that I feel like that there are a lot more important events occurring around us, that effect us in a much larger way, that simply gets swept under the rug by these types of "news" stories.
I'm not lacking sympathy for the kid's loss. Losing a parent for most people is terrible. But I'm not going to feel any more sympathy towards them, than I would you - being a complete stranger to me. Certainly not because "news" tells me to. It would be fair to say that the thoughts and feelings I have towards the negative impact of what it takes to accumulate that sort of wealth override the casual sympathy for the submarine situation.
The refugee situation is a whole 'nother can of worms. But as desperate a move as it may have been for them, I do in fact respect them for taking that risk for what I'll assume to be trying to have a better life. That takes some amount of courage, so as individuals it's mainly sympathy. Long way about it, those in the submarine represent why there's a refugee situation.
As far as the eggplant parmesean goes, while I regret to inform you that it wasn't fresh from a garden, I can make it up to you and vouch that the "heat n eat" in the frozen section at Aldi's is pretty okay.
I feel worse about the refugees as they are just trying ti move somewhere to survive and have a better life. These people went on a giant ego trip. They are not the same.
Yes, as I read, my heart welled up with sympathy for the young man. He couldn’t help who his parents are.
...the negative impact of what it takes to accumulate that sort of wealth override the casual sympathy for the submarine situation.
Long way about it, those in the submarine represent why there's a refugee situation.
This statement very well sums up where my sympathies lie on the subject. A "philanthropist billionaire" is an oxymoron: nobody fairly accumulated a billion dollars without exploiting somebody else for it - their time, their labor, their resources.
Those billions could materially improve the lives of tens of thousands of people. If they distributed that wealth equitably, philanthropically, they would no longer be billionaires.
the migrants deaths are an indirect product of the billionaires hoarding of resources.
neither should have happened. people should've have that level of wealth and if it was more properly redistributed it's likely that the migrants would not be so starving and penniless.
Absolutely. These people's lives ended in unimaginable terror. No matter who they were, it didn't need to go like this.
In fairness, that's probably more due to the novelty of the disaster, more so than whoever was actually on board.
A refugee boat sinking is a tragedy, but it's also not novel in the eyes of the media (and might be difficult to report on, depending on local laws). It happens with enough regularity that it's considered another tragedy, in much the same way that America doesn't report all their mass shootings (they tend to have one for almost every day of the year), or how the local paper usually doesn't report every robbery and homicide.
The submarine incident is a bit more like a plane crash by comparison, which is rare and novel enough that it's worth reporting on, irrespective of whoever is on board. Particularly with the other facts being dug up, which only added fuel to the fire.
the media is like 90% wealthy people dude. ordinary working people do not become reporters anymore. at least not for the past 30+ years.
same with hollywood. you see so many stories about rich people because all the writers in hollywood are upper middle class at a minimum.
That sucks. I hope they sort some more regulation on this kind of thing, I'm all for freedom to do stupid shit, but I feel like the CEO here took advantage of people who trusted him. People do need protecting from themselves.
The regulations did exist, but the CEO/company just ignored/sidestepped them (and was quoted as complaining about them being onerous).
I don't know much about it, but from what I saw on the news there isn't regulation exactly. There's guidelines which he chose not to follow, but he was free to do that.
Technically, they don't require any certifications in international waters, and that's how he side stepped it. The glass was only rated for 1300m. The sub was only rated for 3000m. (Titanic sits about 4000m) They built it from carbon fiber which is good under tension, but terrible under compression... The lack of engineering in this thing was astounding and I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.
I make my teen son do crap all the time that he doesn't want to. It builds character.
Edit: I mean cut the grass, wash the dishes, general crap like that. It's not like I'm making him dive to the bottom of the ocean in a tin can. Although I do incourage him to try new things, that's parenting.
It builds resentment. Kids are also humans with their own wants, goals, and dreams. Not yours.
My comment was meant to be somewhat sarcastic.
I was referring to making him do crap he doesn't want to do as in chores and whatnot. Typical teenager stuff.
I appreciate that he is his own person but still strongly encourage him to try different things to see what sticks. In no way do I push him to follow my wants goals, or dreams. Parents who do that bug me too.
Indeed. It's important to teach kids that in this life they're heading into they're going to have to do some things they don't really want to do in exchange for the resources they'll need to do the stuff they do want to do.
At least until AI and automation is fully deployed to every aspect of the economy and we've got UBI to rely on. Then we can all choose to do only things that we want to do. But that may take a little while yet.
There will be that transitory period with AI where we have things we don't want to do to survive with very little access to the things we want to do.
Yeah, probably. My position is that we should rush through that transitory period as fast as we can, because it sucks to be in it but there's a big prize once we get past it.
No, kids are a never ending source of labour. They owe me for choosing to bring them into this world and they can pay it back over the next 18 years by being a slave to my whims.
You want your own hopes and dreams? Stop being lazy and birth yourself.
Are you all such fucking idiots that you cannot see it is literally impossible for someone to give birth to themselves and this is all a play on those “bootstraps” nongs?
You know the phrase "read the room"?
What does it say about you when you use this as a response to a dad who convinced his son to take the trip that would end up killing him? Is that the time when you wanna say "Now that's the kind of thing I would do!" ?
There's just some places where even if you have some kind of point, it gets completely eclipsed by you saying it in response to the worst case scenario.
Sorry but it is relevent. The article seems to be saying dad forced kids....now parents "force" kids to do a lot. I may take my son to a museam to help with his highschool project...he would rather just sit at home play video games...if I crashed on the way to the museam and he died would I be balmes for forcing my son on the trip.
The nuance here lies in the maintaince and safety.. to continue my analogy if my car was a rust bucket with the axel about to fall of and I persuaded my son into the car..then yes blame me.
It kindof makes you look like a bad parent when you use "Son is dead" article to voice your support of making sons do things. Like you saw this and felt you needed to defend yourself like the article was attacking you.
Parents should also teach their kids that there is a time and place for everything.
It should also be mentioned that you're also ignoring that the father knew full well that there were safety concerns with the sub in question, as he had complained regarding regulators. This is just not the hill to die on. Like for every imaginary scenario you try to argue, this guy did much worse.
Like it should be the other way around, you should not want to compare yourself to this guy in any semblance.
I'm just sad that so much time, resources and attention was focused on the fate of these 5 people, when there are literally 2 other incidents involving the potential deaths of hundreds of migrants happening at the same time.
There's not a limit on resources here. They didn't send people here who could have gone to the other boats.
In the case of the Canary Islands boat there was actually a Spanish ship present that chose not to assist. It's suggested that if they'd helped then nobody would have died on that boat.
It's foul.