I am sick of hearing about the fucking submarine

[ericbarbour]

Wanna see something no one is talking about? Wikipedians shitting on Stockton Rush's head---days after his death. It's what I would expect from them. WP continues to mishandle recent news AND continues to hate on rich people. He probably deserves abuse, but now that he's gone, it is a bit meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_Rush

Was Rush "notable" before he was turned into apeburger by the Atlantic Ocean? I would say so, but there's no arguing with Wiki-Fucks. An attempt to AFD it today failed. Wheee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ckton_Rush

Both he and his wife are "old money" types, "how dare you tell us what to do or how to design a submarine" etc. Her great-great-grandfather was one of the founders of Macys AND died on the Titanic. No wonder they were obsessed with it. And willing to spend other people's money to see the huge pile of ocean-bottom rust.

PS, the OceanGate article was created in 2015, by obvious paid editors who just copied self-serving crap from their website. It was editwarred for months thereafter. Dozens of edit deletions. Helps to explain the head-shitting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... y&dir=prev

[Boink Boink]

The truly hilarious parts are these.....

"In The News" squabbling over whether five very rich and quite extraodrindary people dying in an extremely unusual way or forty worthless boat people dying in a pretty common way is more newsworthy significant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... t_disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... e_incident

SPOILER ALERT - the important people win! Yay!

There is an argument to be made that rare stuff trumps routine stuff per NOTNEWS, but Wikipedia is of course a haven for bleeding heart liberals who have rich people. They gave it a good go. Then again, they aren't that bothered really. The migrant sinking barely rates a two section, five paragraph article. The submersible is already up to FIFTY PARAGRAPHS with sections on sections.

Not quite sure why they couldn't have posted both, but ITN is rather a Death Match. If only they knew how little people cared. Who even loads up the Front Page anymore anyway? Some fucking hermit with a PC in his basement with Wikipedia set to his browser Home Page? Ridiculous.

What I found much more telling about the sheer shitness of Wikipedia, is that the introduction to "2023 Titan submersible incident" only mentions that five people died and the voyage was merely a "tourist expedition" to the wreck of Titanic. You have to scroll pretty far down to one of the bottom sections, to realise that perhaps the biggest crime committee by the clearly very reckless Mr Rush, is that one of the five people who are now crushed beyond all recognition, was "widely considered the leading authority on the wreck site".

Wikipedia. It's fucking shit.

You want news?

They got you covered six ways from Sunday. How could you have ever lived not knowing that....

The search and rescue operation was conducted by an international team led by the United States Coast Guard, United States Navy, and Canadian Coast Guard.[9] Support was provided by aircraft from the Royal Canadian Air Force and United States Air National Guard, a Royal Canadian Navy ship, as well as several commercial and research vessels and ROVs

Ooooh, look at our encyclopedia, we have articles for the US Coast Guard and the Canadian Coast Guard and remotely operated vehicle.

Fucking nerds.

You want significance? Try a news website. Or turn on a TV, you fucking moron.

[ericbarbour]

SPOILER ALERT - the important people win! Yay!

as usual....

but Wikipedia is of course a haven for bleeding heart liberals who have rich people.

"Have" as in the biblical way, or as slaves?

You want significance? Try a news website. Or turn on a TV, you fucking moron.

Well, they aren't much different. Wikipedia grew up convincing itself that it was "special and unique" and "more factual" and "freer" than the corporate-owned news media. As it has turned out, they are no goddamn different in some very important ways.

If the fuckheads on In the news/Candidates took ONE-TENTH of the time wasted on arguing over what to put on the front page, and spent it on writing ACTUAL NEWS CONTENT, Wikipedia could demolish a long list of serious news outlets. But noooo, they get their dopamine from yelling at each other over trivial shit.

[Cla68]

The hate towards OceanGate on social media, which includes Wikipedia, supports the maxim, "Socialists don't care about the poor, they just hate the rich" (BTW, this is a misquote of a paragraph Orwell wrote in which he criticizes certain types of socialists who are drawn to the movement because they were using it as a power trip, which ironically still applies to WP editors and admins). However, not all the haters on OceanGate are leftists, although many, if not most, of them are.

The thing is, explorers often are eccentric or thrill-seeking rich/upper class people. George Mallory is another example. OceanGate does count as exploration, because I presume that if the Titanic trips had been successful, the company would have started advocating the use of its subs to explore other deep sea areas. I expect that our future space exploration will include Titan-like, privately funded and constructed experimental spaceships crewed by rich eccentrics plowing their way through the solar system and in many cases dying in the effort.

[Bbb23sucks]

"Socialists don't care about the poor, they just hate the rich"

The people who whine like that are not Socialists, they are radlibs in denial. Might I ask you: Why are you against Socialism? And what exactly are you against?

[Bbb23sucks]

"In The News" squabbling over whether five very rich and quite extraodrindary people dying in an extremely unusual way or forty worthless boat people dying in a pretty common way is more newsworthy significant.

https://marxist.ca/article/titan-sub-vs ... life-worth

All life is sacred. But not these lives.

The Titanic was equipped to cater to the tastes of its wealthiest passengers: it had an à la carte restaurant, a great lounge, and even a famous Grand Staircase.

But it also had its Third Class passengers, many of them Irish migrants. They were kept in special compartments, below decks, behind grilled gates to keep them from interacting with the First Class passengers – the former were regarded as carriers of disease. When the vessel began to sink, those gates remained locked shut according to some witnesses, just as hundreds of Pakistani women and children were kept locked in the hold of that fishing trawler on that fateful journey from Libya to Italy two weeks ago.

39 percent of First Class passengers perished. 76 percent of Third Class passengers lost their lives, and 98 percent of Third Class male passengers died. In the words of one survivor, Mary Davis Wilburn, “The dead came up holding children in their arms. The poor people never had a chance.”

The lesson learned is, quite simply: live or die, they do not care about us.

Edit: Here's an article specifically about the migrants: https://marxist.ca/article/horror-in-th ... capitalism

[Cla68]

"Socialists don't care about the poor, they just hate the rich"

The people who whine like that are not Socialists, they are radlibs in denial. Might I ask you: Why are you against Socialism? And what exactly are you against?

Well, we need to define what we're talking about and my definition here is economic socialism which is social control (versus private) of the means of production.

The biggest problem with socialism is that it doesn't scale. It appears that people can make socialism work in a small community, such as a commune or a kibbutz, or in a sector, like healthcare (although that is debatable), but it hasn't worked at running a nation. The Soviets, Maoists, Venezuela, North Korea, and Cambodia, have all failed at establishing a sustaining, socialist economy. Cuba and Laos may be the exceptions, although there are strong arguments saying that they are also failing. Nazi Germany (National Socialism was an accurate title for their political movement) didn't last long enough to show whether their version of socialism was sustainable.

Capitalism has its problems, but it scales much better.

[Bbb23sucks]

"Socialists don't care about the poor, they just hate the rich"

The people who whine like that are not Socialists, they are radlibs in denial. Might I ask you: Why are you against Socialism? And what exactly are you against?

Well, we need to define what we're talking about and my definition here is economic socialism which is social control (versus private) of the means of production.

The biggest problem with socialism is that it doesn't scale. It appears that people can make socialism work in a small community, such as a commune or a kibbutz, or in a sector, like healthcare (although that is debatable), but it hasn't worked at running a nation. The Soviets, Maoists, Venezuela, North Korea, and Cambodia, have all failed at establishing a sustaining, socialist economy. Cuba and Laos may be the exceptions, although there are strong arguments saying that they are also failing. Nazi Germany (National Socialism was an accurate title for their political movement) didn't last long enough to show whether their version of socialism was sustainable.

Capitalism has its problems, but it scales much better.

I disagree with you, but I have thanked you because you took the time to create a civil and well-informed response.

My main issue with this argument is the idea of it being "direct". You can make the same argument about liberal democracy. Technically the government isn't directly democratic, but we still call it that because we directly elect representatives. While direct democracy does not scale well, representative democracy (with referendums for select issues) does scale well and there's no reason why we can't do that for corporations as well.