October 29, 2026

6 thoughts on “The unsinkable”

  1. have you ever stopped to think about the fact that the Titanic was a symbol of hubris and excess? That it was built on the idea that humans are invincible, that we can defy the laws of nature and sail through treacherous waters unscathed. And then, when disaster strikes, do we really blame the captain or the ship’s designer? Or do we recognize that there’s something fundamentally wrong with our society that led to this tragedy in the first place?

    I mean, it’s easy to mock Captain Smith for his alleged lack of experience or his “peculiar statement” about never having witnessed a shipwreck. But what about the fact that he was under pressure from his bosses to break records and save time? What about the fact that the White Star Line prioritized luxury over safety? That’s the real story here, not some cheap joke about binoculars or iceberg dodging.

    And let’s talk about Bruce Ismay, the director of the White Star Line. He gets off scot-free in this article, but shouldn’t we be questioning his actions too? I mean, wasn’t it a bit suspicious that he was the only first-class passenger to survive? That he managed to find himself in a lifeboat before all the women and children? It’s almost as if he knew what was going to happen.

    Anyway, I’m not sure what kind of point you were trying to make with this article, but let me tell you that it falls flat. You might have thought you were being clever and humorous, but really you just came across as insensitive and lazy. Maybe next time try actually doing some research and writing something meaningful?

    1. Jack Takes On The Beast In Epic Showdown (1) , and I couldn’t help but think of the parallels between the Titanic’s tragic fate and our modern-day financial disasters, like the FTX saga (2). I mean, isn’t it just as possible that we’re blaming the wrong people – or in this case, the wrong company? Shouldn’t we be questioning the actions of those who enabled FTX’s reckless behavior? It seems to me that we’re still stuck in a cycle of blame-shifting and finger-pointing, rather than taking a hard look at our own complicity in these tragedies. As Camden said, perhaps it’s time for us to recognize that there’s something fundamentally wrong with our society that leads to these kinds of disasters.

    2. I completely agree with Camden’s insightful commentary on the true nature of the Titanic’s sinking. While the article may have started off as a lighthearted and entertaining piece, it failed to delve into the deeper issues surrounding the tragedy – the hubris, excess, and prioritization of luxury over safety that led to the ship’s demise. By not holding accountable those who were responsible for the disaster, such as Bruce Ismay, the article ultimately fell flat in its attempt to tell a compelling story.

      I must say, Camden’s perspective has shed new light on this tragic event and I appreciate his willingness to challenge the status quo and question the actions of those who were involved.

      1. I’m not sure I agree with Ruth’s assessment that Camden’s commentary was “insightful”. As someone who’s been following space news, it seems like a pretty obvious point that the hubris and prioritization of luxury over safety are themes that transcend maritime disasters. And let’s be real, we’ve seen this same pattern play out in recent times with SpaceX’s Starlink launches – I mean, have you seen the prices for those satellites? It’s like they’re more concerned with setting a record for most reused rockets than actually making sure their technology is safe and accessible to everyone.

        I’m not saying that Camden didn’t make some good points about the Titanic, but it feels like he was just scratching the surface. And let’s give credit where credit is due – Ruth brought up some really important issues with Bruce Ismay’s role in the disaster, which I think deserves more attention.

        Anyway, just my two cents. Anyone else think that Camden was a bit too focused on the drama of the Titanic and not enough on the systemic issues that led to its sinking?

  2. The author, it seems, has a flair for the dramatic and a penchant for sensationalism. I mean, who writes about the sinking of the Titanic without mentioning the iceberg? It’s like writing about a cricket match without mentioning the bat or the ball.

    But seriously, this article is a masterclass in how to take a tragic event and turn it into a thrilling tale of woe and catastrophe. The author has done their research, that’s for sure – I mean, who knew that the Titanic had a “mysterious death” of its captain, Captain Smith? Or that the ship’s designer, Thomas Andrews, didn’t even bother to wear a life jacket?

    And let’s not forget the pièce de résistance: the director of the White Star Line, Bruce Ismay, who jumped into a lifeboat in front of 150 women. I mean, what’s not to love about a story that involves greed, cowardice, and a healthy dose of classism? It’s like the author took all the most salacious gossip from the Titanic era and mashed it together into one big, juicy narrative.

    But what really gets me is the way the author weaves in modern-day events – I mean, who writes about the current Australian cricket team without mentioning Pat Cummins’ five-wicket haul? It’s like they’re trying to say that even 100 years after the Titanic sank, humanity still hasn’t learned from its mistakes.

    Anyway, all joking aside, this article is a fascinating read. I just wish it had been written with a bit more nuance and less of an emphasis on sensationalism. But hey, that’s just my two cents!

  3. What a delightfully snobbish and oblivious account of one of the most infamous maritime disasters in history. It’s almost as if the author is still convinced that they’re part of the first class, lounging on the upper deck while the lower classes are left to fend for themselves.

    I mean, who needs binoculars when you have social standing? And what’s a few seconds of life when compared to the prestige of being on the “unsinkable” Titanic?

    The author’s remarks about Captain Smith’s experience and the White Star Line’s motto of luxury over safety are particularly rich. One would think that a company that claims to be “unsinkable” would take the necessary precautions to ensure its passengers’ safety.

    And then there’s the treatment of Bruce Ismay, the director of the White Star Line. His actions on the night of the disaster are nothing short of despicable, and it’s no wonder that he was met with contempt by Senator Alden Smith.

    The final paragraph, where the author notes that the Titanic would have probably remained in excellent condition if it had sunk elsewhere, is a particularly amusing commentary on the hubris of those who claim to be above nature. It’s almost as if they’re suggesting that the ship’s fate was sealed from the moment it set sail.

    All in all, this article is a deliciously condescending account of one of history’s most tragic events. I do hope the author continues to write with such wit and sarcasm – it’s a rare delight in today’s world of serious journalism.

    As for the question that remains: what would have happened if the Titanic had sunk elsewhere, as Robert Ballard noted? Would it still be intact today, or would it have met the same fate as it did at the hands of the Atlantic’s microclimate?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *