[Steiner] is best known for his 2001 hit single “What If She’s an Angel,” which is, coincidentally, a ballad about showing compassion for a homeless person.
According to a Google search, he didn't write that song. Someone else wrote it and he just performed it. Perhaps he never believed in the message. But even if he had written it, I wouldn't be...
According to a Google search, he didn't write that song. Someone else wrote it and he just performed it. Perhaps he never believed in the message.
But even if he had written it, I wouldn't be surprised. I think stupid people, selfish people, and people with low empathy can usually only feel empathy when something feels personal to them, either because it's happening directly to them or because it's happening to someone like them.
We also see this type of thinking in Dick Cheney, a reliable Republican in all matters except for one - gay marriage. Of course, he has a gay daughter so it would affect him.
My mother had nothing positive or kind to say about drug addicts my whole life. After I went to rehab for opiates 6 years ago, now it's Purdue Pharma's fault for victimizing people in pursuit of profit. But in her mind, meth users are still meth heads who made bad choices because there isn't a pharmaceutical company behind that particular epidemic, and because it doesn't affect her.
I read the lyrics to this song. It leaves it open-ended enough for someone to picture a person like them. If you're from Appalachia, you can picture a hard-working Appalachian person or family down on their luck. But when you're smacked with the reality that homeless people can be black, atheist, liberal, drug-addicted, or whatever doesn't fit your "ideal" homeless person stereotype, you can dispense of any empathy. It no longer applies if you don't want it to. Particularly if you think you'll get more social media points for not using empathy to approach the situation.
“Austin traffic is bad, so I’m doing my part to make it a little better by not being in it. #ecowarrior,” he said in a post of a video of him flying over downtown Austin.
it does not surprise me at all that this nepo baby, who was able to afford a private helicopter because of inherited wealth from mommy and daddy, thinks it's fun to use it to harass poor people....
Steiner is a former country singer and heir to the Steiner Ranch. Once 5,200 acres of ranch land, the ranch was sold to a developer and is today an upscale residential community
it does not surprise me at all that this nepo baby, who was able to afford a private helicopter because of inherited wealth from mommy and daddy, thinks it's fun to use it to harass poor people.
I'd be surprised if he's not violating some regulation of his pilot's license. you can't fuck around with low-level flying like this in a populated area, for a lot of very good reasons.
hopefully the FAA convinces him to knock it off before some Texan on the ground takes a vigilante approach to fighting back against his flying vigilantism, and starts shooting at his helicopter.
“No danger…” Maybe it is not rational but I know a lot of fixed wing pilots, one who flew little planes in the Coast Guard and another who flew big planes for the USAF who were terrified to fly in...
“No danger…” Maybe it is not rational but I know a lot of fixed wing pilots, one who flew little planes in the Coast Guard and another who flew big planes for the USAF who were terrified to fly in helicopters and this was doing safe things like getting a ride to an army base so the USAF officer could help out the army with a computer problem. When it comes to reckless flying, no way!
Everything I learned about rotorcraft in engineering school convinced me that helicopters are always trying to simultaneously tear themselves apart and fall from the sky. Planes want to keep...
Everything I learned about rotorcraft in engineering school convinced me that helicopters are always trying to simultaneously tear themselves apart and fall from the sky. Planes want to keep flying; helicopters really don't.
It's kind of complicated and I'm not a pilot, but here are some basics. I'll say this first. In defense of helicopters, one could point out that they are usually flying in more dangerous...
It's kind of complicated and I'm not a pilot, but here are some basics.
I'll say this first. In defense of helicopters, one could point out that they are usually flying in more dangerous situations. They fly low to the ground, leaving less time for emergency recovery procedures. They also take off and land in treacherous areas such as war zones, wooded or mountainous areas for rescue missions, etc. more often. In other words, people are often using helicopters for dangerous things that planes just can't do. So, are helicopters inherently less safe? Yeah, but part of that is definitely due to the fact that they are used in situations which are already less safe. Also in defense of helicopters, they can auto-rotate in an "ideal" emergency. This is where they can disengage the rotors from the engine while falling and allow the blades to be spun freely by the upward flow of air as they fall. This can allow them to land safely in the event that they lose engine power.
On the other hand, helicopters have more moving parts and are more complex. I mean, think of what the term "fixed-wing aircraft" really means. It means that the wings stay put, like on a plane. If everything else fails, a 747 with its wings intact still has a glide ratio of 15:1. In other words, it can glide 15 feet horizontally for every 1 foot of altitude it loses. Those planes can glide extremely far with no engines, but it hardly matters because they have 4 engines and can fly using only one. Compare this to rotary-wing aircraft like a helicopter. On a helicopter, the wings are rotating at 200-500 rotations per minute and the glide ratio is more like 5:1. If you're putting your life on the line, the things keeping you in the air are safer when they're not spinning at 500 rpm. There is also a single point of failure holding the helicopter blades on. They call it a Jesus nut because if it fails, your only course of action is to pray to Jesus.
Planes are kind of like boats in the sense that they "want" to stay in the air (with the caveat that plans have to be moving forward to do so while boats do not). Something has to go horribly wrong for a plane to fall out of the sky - usually several somethings. Bernoulli's principal all but ensures a plane will keep on flying. Helicopters are a bit more like beating gravity into submission and there are a lot of things that can make a helicopter stop flying.
Imagine an alternative use of the expensive helicopter fuel dollars combined with personal time dollars, into something that could be worthwhile. Maybe like helping homeless people in real terms?
Imagine an alternative use of the expensive helicopter fuel dollars combined with personal time dollars, into something that could be worthwhile.
This is a needlessly aggressive way to approach the user above. They only suggested that, if this guy in the article actually wanted to help people, perhaps not doing exactly what he is currently...
Do you think helicopter money is enough to solve the systemic homeless problem that has exploded over the last three years?
This is a needlessly aggressive way to approach the user above. They only suggested that, if this guy in the article actually wanted to help people, perhaps not doing exactly what he is currently doing would be a good place to start.
Nothing in their comment even hinted that they believe one man’s helicopter fuel money might be the key to solving systemic homelessness.
Putting the perfect before the good only stifles discussion. Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of what you’ve said.
The irony is incredible.
According to a Google search, he didn't write that song. Someone else wrote it and he just performed it. Perhaps he never believed in the message.
But even if he had written it, I wouldn't be surprised. I think stupid people, selfish people, and people with low empathy can usually only feel empathy when something feels personal to them, either because it's happening directly to them or because it's happening to someone like them.
Great examples of this can be found in this short essay, The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion.
We also see this type of thinking in Dick Cheney, a reliable Republican in all matters except for one - gay marriage. Of course, he has a gay daughter so it would affect him.
My mother had nothing positive or kind to say about drug addicts my whole life. After I went to rehab for opiates 6 years ago, now it's Purdue Pharma's fault for victimizing people in pursuit of profit. But in her mind, meth users are still meth heads who made bad choices because there isn't a pharmaceutical company behind that particular epidemic, and because it doesn't affect her.
I read the lyrics to this song. It leaves it open-ended enough for someone to picture a person like them. If you're from Appalachia, you can picture a hard-working Appalachian person or family down on their luck. But when you're smacked with the reality that homeless people can be black, atheist, liberal, drug-addicted, or whatever doesn't fit your "ideal" homeless person stereotype, you can dispense of any empathy. It no longer applies if you don't want it to. Particularly if you think you'll get more social media points for not using empathy to approach the situation.
I think the popularity of "Try that in a Small Town" by Jason Aldean shows where the points are being given in right-wing country music circles right now.
He must be joking right?
it does not surprise me at all that this nepo baby, who was able to afford a private helicopter because of inherited wealth from mommy and daddy, thinks it's fun to use it to harass poor people.
I'd be surprised if he's not violating some regulation of his pilot's license. you can't fuck around with low-level flying like this in a populated area, for a lot of very good reasons.
hopefully the FAA convinces him to knock it off before some Texan on the ground takes a vigilante approach to fighting back against his flying vigilantism, and starts shooting at his helicopter.
“No danger…” Maybe it is not rational but I know a lot of fixed wing pilots, one who flew little planes in the Coast Guard and another who flew big planes for the USAF who were terrified to fly in helicopters and this was doing safe things like getting a ride to an army base so the USAF officer could help out the army with a computer problem. When it comes to reckless flying, no way!
Everything I learned about rotorcraft in engineering school convinced me that helicopters are always trying to simultaneously tear themselves apart and fall from the sky. Planes want to keep flying; helicopters really don't.
Assuming this isn’t a huge ask, could you elaborate on why this is the case? It sounds really interesting.
It's kind of complicated and I'm not a pilot, but here are some basics.
I'll say this first. In defense of helicopters, one could point out that they are usually flying in more dangerous situations. They fly low to the ground, leaving less time for emergency recovery procedures. They also take off and land in treacherous areas such as war zones, wooded or mountainous areas for rescue missions, etc. more often. In other words, people are often using helicopters for dangerous things that planes just can't do. So, are helicopters inherently less safe? Yeah, but part of that is definitely due to the fact that they are used in situations which are already less safe. Also in defense of helicopters, they can auto-rotate in an "ideal" emergency. This is where they can disengage the rotors from the engine while falling and allow the blades to be spun freely by the upward flow of air as they fall. This can allow them to land safely in the event that they lose engine power.
On the other hand, helicopters have more moving parts and are more complex. I mean, think of what the term "fixed-wing aircraft" really means. It means that the wings stay put, like on a plane. If everything else fails, a 747 with its wings intact still has a glide ratio of 15:1. In other words, it can glide 15 feet horizontally for every 1 foot of altitude it loses. Those planes can glide extremely far with no engines, but it hardly matters because they have 4 engines and can fly using only one. Compare this to rotary-wing aircraft like a helicopter. On a helicopter, the wings are rotating at 200-500 rotations per minute and the glide ratio is more like 5:1. If you're putting your life on the line, the things keeping you in the air are safer when they're not spinning at 500 rpm. There is also a single point of failure holding the helicopter blades on. They call it a Jesus nut because if it fails, your only course of action is to pray to Jesus.
Planes are kind of like boats in the sense that they "want" to stay in the air (with the caveat that plans have to be moving forward to do so while boats do not). Something has to go horribly wrong for a plane to fall out of the sky - usually several somethings. Bernoulli's principal all but ensures a plane will keep on flying. Helicopters are a bit more like beating gravity into submission and there are a lot of things that can make a helicopter stop flying.
Hey it's called a jesus nut for a reason lol
Imagine an alternative use of the expensive helicopter fuel dollars combined with personal time dollars, into something that could be worthwhile.
Maybe like helping homeless people in real terms?
This is a needlessly aggressive way to approach the user above. They only suggested that, if this guy in the article actually wanted to help people, perhaps not doing exactly what he is currently doing would be a good place to start.
Nothing in their comment even hinted that they believe one man’s helicopter fuel money might be the key to solving systemic homelessness.
Putting the perfect before the good only stifles discussion. Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of what you’ve said.