4 ms·

Is there anything to indicate they were deliberately acting against the interests of those affected, or is it just a lot of armchair quarterbacking. It's very e

Is there anything to indicate they were deliberately acting against the interests of those affected, or is it just a lot of armchair quarterbacking. It's very easy to retrospectively judge people for decisions they had to make in a fog of war.

constantly 3y ago
My question too. The person who “refused to turn on the alarms” got raked over the coals by would-be Monday Morning Quarterbackers. Then it turned out that officials actions were the right ones, even in retrospect, and people accusing them were just out for a viral quote. It was disgusting. I’m reserving any judgment on this story, no matter how incendiary the headline, until more facts come out.
- dekhn 3y ago
  Note this is a general thing in the media: after any event, attempt to find the proximal cause and concentrate the blame there (often using the "evil corporation narrative"). Some articles are slightly better in that they attempt to identify root causes and advocate for policy changes to address them.
justinclift 3y ago
Seems to be clarified in: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii-fires-maui-water-rights-disaster-capitalism https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii... (as per cratermoon's post, which seems stuck at the bottom on this page though)
bradleyjg 3y ago
In the case of the alarms they were trading off the alarms potentially saving lives vs the alarms potentially costing lives. It was a tough call. In the case of the water they were trading off the water potentially saving lives vs the water being available to grow taro. It was not a tough call and the dude got it wrong.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  Worse than 1100+ people dead?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
readthenotes1 3y ago
There is a video of the water manager saying that he was going to restore the traditional Hawaiian reverence for water, that it was not to be simply used.

constantly 3y ago

My question too. The person who “refused to turn on the alarms” got raked over the coals by would-be Monday Morning Quarterbackers. Then it turned out that officials actions were the right ones, even in retrospect, and people accusing them were just out for a viral quote. It was disgusting. I’m reserving any judgment on this story, no matter how incendiary the headline, until more facts come out.

dekhn 3y ago
Note this is a general thing in the media: after any event, attempt to find the proximal cause and concentrate the blame there (often using the "evil corporation narrative"). Some articles are slightly better in that they attempt to identify root causes and advocate for policy changes to address them.

justinclift 3y ago

Seems to be clarified in: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii-fires-maui-water-rights-disaster-capitalism https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii... (as per cratermoon's post, which seems stuck at the bottom on this page though)

bradleyjg 3y ago

In the case of the alarms they were trading off the alarms potentially saving lives vs the alarms potentially costing lives. It was a tough call. In the case of the water they were trading off the water potentially saving lives vs the water being available to grow taro. It was not a tough call and the dude got it wrong.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
Worse than 1100+ people dead?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

readthenotes1 3y ago

There is a video of the water manager saying that he was going to restore the traditional Hawaiian reverence for water, that it was not to be simply used.