Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: coug who wrote (30764)	10/3/2001 1:05:51 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I generally agree with you coug, but we are a diverse nation. If I am an atheist (I'm not) and I had lost someone, it seems that her gesture was ineffective. We were debating (St. Bill and I) whether a person who has evil in their heart but only produces good is actually evil. I said "no" because it is the effects that determine the goodness and badness of the action and not intent. We can only guess about intent. Similarly, all the goodness in Oprah's heart can't offset any harm done by her words (presuming that there was some). If someone was trying to produce solidarity, then one needs to step outside their metaphysical shell (if that is even possible) and make sure they produce the desired effect. To illustrate my point, when I ride my bike I am frequently encountering people who have my best interest at heart, but end up putting me in danger by not following the rules of the road. An adult person fully dressed as a cyclist with helmet and gloves should be treated like a car. Period. When I try to cross a multilane, uncontrolled intersection and some people stop for me to cross, they actually increase my chances of being hit. Most people (thankfully) don't stop, and now this vehicle is just blocking my view and confusing other drivers, effectively putting me in greater danger. I know they are trying to do "the right thing" but by violating the rules of the road they are doing the "wrong thing." I've debated with myself how I should respond. These days I can either yell "Pretend I'm a car!!!!!" or just let it go. I don't have the ultimate answer to my dilemma. Or Oprah's.

To: coug who wrote (30764)	10/3/2001 1:11:51 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

If I thought a candy-coated aphorism would help some particular persons feel better in their loss, I'd utter it willingly. But if I understood that there were among the thousands of bereaved many who would be hurt at a childish trivialization of their loss, I wouldn't indulge in it, but instead would treat their loss with the philosophical gravity it deserved. Of course if one simply doesn't understand, one can only be accused of shallowness, and cluelessness, and childish magical thinking, and not meanness. (Not for a single second do I suspect Oprah of meanness. She is clearly a well-meaning person.) There were, I assume, those who were comforted by Oprah's candy-coated angel conceit. Just as there were many, I'm sure, who thought Updike's remarks in the NYer were appropriate. "Glorious," perhaps. I was viscerally offended by both, well-meaning as they both undoubtedly were. Do you object to (ie 'dis') Leon Wieseltier's 'dissing' of Updike's piece on the bombing? To me, his objection to the facile Updike treatment, and to Oprah's airheaded remark, gave great honor to the dead, as Updike's piece and Oprah's comment did not. thenewrepublic.com