That's just a fact of distribution. Few naysayers mean fewer places for naythinking modders to put their points.
Re:Sadly, universities have the least free speech.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I remember this full well. In fact, it came back to me most strongly while reading the Graham article. This was 1989-1993 (undergrad) and the strongest campus movement was feminism, of that particular bent when taken up by the young without a sense of proportion and with what came to be considered "backlash" against male oppressive rule. Oh, I should mention that this was also in the honours psychology program, probably hit harder by this current than, say, electrical engineering.
The thing about stifling dissent is that when a critical mass is reached, it isn't that you have to be strong enough to dissent; you have to be foolish. I can remember a criminology class where the prof spent the same amount of time on feminist theory as all other theories put together, and since she encouraged outrageous emotional attacks on males in general, that became the tone the class as a whole (already 90% female, no doubt due to the prof's reputation which I unfortunately had not known). First I think there were five guys, then four, then three, two, and finally, just me, by which time the critical mass had obviously been reached and half the class would be spent in rants.
Finally the prof makes the observation that males receive heavier sentences than females for all types of crimes, regardless of circumstance and criminal record held constant. This she attributed to discrimination against women. That was it. I'd had it. I dissented. She said that female criminals were not being taken "as seriously" as male criminals and in that way, were not allowed to advance in their chosen career. Well, you can imagine how well the class took my dissent, and I was reviled for even questioning doctrine (ie: the prof's words). That was the last class I attended in that course, but if you blame me, then you have never withstood that measure of social abuse. Also, I was young.
Graham makes the important point: you should exercise the utmost mental freedom but be careful about what you express; the freedom to think what you will is more important than to say what you will, and you cannot join every battle unless you're to become Chomsky. Well, true enough. But every person has their limits.
The problem with Chomsky (or really, with others as they react to him) is that we seem to intrinsically rebel against any suggestion of tainted free will. Tell someone that commercials statistically influence human behaviour, subconsciously, and they'll probably agree. Tell them that this probably means them, too, and they'll protest.
Tell people that their own views are already the products of shaping and they will brand you a heretic.
Most people outside of China believe that Tibetans should have been free, also, but at this point -- directly related to Chinese policy of forced migration and settlement (sound familiar?) -- it is too late without even more displacement.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
There be loads and loads of westerners who blame America for 9/11. If you haven't heard it, it's probably because it's "heresy" to say so. Israel, however, is a new one.
Lots of things were acceptable not that long ago that aren't now. It's never sufficient to say "you don't have it that bad because". Suffering isn't relative. Only to the disinterested bystander could it be. And as trading partners, political partners, and as consumers, we are involved. Our hands are dirty. So it's not simply a matter of "staying out of it". We're in it. The question is how to behave in a way that fits our, current standards for how we believe people should be treated.
I find it hard to blame those who don't know any better. But those who do know better from experience, and look the other way -- there are no excuses for that.
I'm Canadian, so let's say that my advantages came partly from British oppression rather than American. My being born here, however, has not a thing to do with it. Not to get overly philosophical -- I mean, obviously, genetically, here was the place for "me" to be. But as an accident of birth, I cannot be born into guilt, only things. Do I recognize the barbarity that put these things here in this way? (cleared the land of Natives, allowed my parents and grandparents to farm here, erm, kept the manifest destiny hounds at bay) Absolutely. But I did not partake in it, and in no way is any of it my "fault".
Now, the flipside of this is, I could have been born in China. In poverty. In Africa, with AIDS. In Sierra Leone, or East Timor, or Afghastan or Palestine. The way I see it, I owe some blood and effort and cold hard cash to try to settle that score. Not because I'm "guilty" through my birth but because my birth has nothing to do with it. I don't intrinsically "deserve" the wealth of my forefathers any more than I deserve their guilt.
I can see where you're coming from regarding the "imposition" of human rights on the third world. It's a little like telling other nations: sorry, no experimentation with nuclear weapons, because we've already done all ours (at least, that was true until recently). There are many voices in the developing world making your claim, and it's important to recognize just what a head start achieves in terms of capital (and the ability to set the agendas of your trading partners, quite importantly), not to mention impose relationships and deals through an imbalance of power. That is seldom recognized, as many on "my" side of this debate see it as imposing the same human rights regime across the board (rather than your observation of past to present).
When it comes down to it, we know that the Earth cannot sustain western living for 6 billion+, each family with its own refridgerator, car, air conditioner. There's a lot of pretense about the "developing world" and how far they will be permitted to go before it adversely affects our standard of living. But surely human rights, however, comprise a bedrock of standards that cross that line. If it's about competition aka money, well it wouldn't be beyond belief if deals were made and money offered on the basis of adherence to basic codes of conduct. For that to happen, however, we need to be more concerned about those rights than we are about those dollars, and so far, I don't see it balancing out that way.
Good show! I hadn't re-visited that issue since the boycott (which where I was did not seem terribly effective), and didn't know that they had gotten out. Nice to know it works once in awhile. Less excuse not to do so again.
Money going into a country at all is a big benefit, wether it goes to workers, a corporation, or a government.
Eventually that money works its way into the hands of the workers, wether it's the company president getting themselves a new yacht built, or a politician buying a new jet.
No, and no. Trickle-down economics is a farce, and will continue to be as long as owners hoard earnings and prepare their golden parachutes in case it all falls apart. (often leaving massive debt in their wake)
I'm really sorry I can't explain Miss Klein's ideas more thoroughly; it's been awhile since I read it, but I wasn't making excuses. The use of tax-free trade zones ensure that the host country gets little for the effort, and in a bizarre twist, makes what goes on in these sweatshops a matter beyond local police control. In other words, a complete disaster.
Did a voice in the marketplace even make the slightest difference to getting companies to implement these policies?
Um, yes. Did you think the owners just got together and decided that these changes would be a good idea?
There's so many more workers in China it's only a matter of time (and very little at that compared to the US, IMHO) before workers there demand more, and decide to demand it in groups.
Well, now you're talking sense. Because an overabundance of workers in our workforce certainly translates to power for those workers. Oh wait, it doesn't. 10 workers for every job usually means that if you even hint at unhappiness with your lot, they can find others to do it without complaint.
Says to impoverished family: "Sorry, but I'll hedge my bets"
I agree 100% with your first paragraph, but this is not (for me) about superiority in the marketplace, preventing equalization of an advantage that was certainly ill-gained. If you got that anywhere from my comments, I'd be surprised.
I am, however, not a country, but a person. I am not responsible for what others have done, but I am responsible for what I do, and what a nifty way to avoid responsibility to say that we've done wrong and it would be hypocrisy to act now. I'm not talking about the U.S. bombing anybody. I'm talking about consumers making choices on the basis of something other than their wallet. For those people who have done wrong, it is never hypocrisy to admit mistakes and change, and in this case we're not talking about former slave owners. I'm sorry, but I don't inherit the guilt of my forefathers. I didn't choose to be born here any more than someone chose to be born in China, but that is the root of our responsibility toward change. We are a product of our times; I'm not saying that we in the age of exploration would have done so much better or kinder. But we can. TODAY.
except that our workers had a voice in the marketplaces where their items were being sold. They were in many cases the very families these companies depended on to buy their products. Globalization (long before it was called that) changed all of that. Foreign manufacturers are under no pressure to change as long as we keep buying their items, and it's not like the average third world worker has a lot of personal contact with average Western Joe Consumer. The old excuse used to be: well, sure, we can stop buying from Vietnam, but manufacturing will just move to Thailand; sure we can stop there, but then there's China. China was always the worst-case scenario. Well, sooner or later there will be no safe havens left for this kind of operation, but it isn't gonna happen without pressure from the people buying the stuff.
You're right about much of the spectrum of products being created in these conditions. With clothing, at this point, I think I can afford Malaysia, but no way Italy. Make no mistake, real difference will mean a (gasp) standard of living difference to the West. You just can't get a cup of coffee for fifty cents if someone isn't working their ass of for pennies an hour. The math doesn't work. But let's start small, eliminating the really egregious conditions. A good psychologist will tell you that your actions help shape who you are as you go. Maybe we'll find positive change addictive. It's better than war.
Sad, but probably true. But then leaving an abusive lover could make things worse rather than better -- in the short term. Supporting an oppressive but stable status quo is always safer. That isn't a reason to not try for change.
I know this sounds obnoxious, but I can't say it better than she can. Read Naomi Klein's "No Logo" if you want an inside look at how the export of manufacturing "aids" developing countries. She makes many technical (but important) observations about how the system is set up to take advantage but not benefit these workers and these countries.
I'll make the simpler argument: you don't support change but supporting the status quo. Employers in the west never volunteered minimum wage, child labour laws, working hour restrictions, etc, etc, etc. It had to be fought for, and these people don't have a voice in the marketplaces where their goods are being sold.
I think you're absolutely right that we shouldn't have to compete with that, though I'm using the word "shouldn't" a little differently.
I think the real world for most of us in the west involves moral choices versus -- of all things -- convenience, and petty cost (I mean, we're talking about DVDs, here. There should be no competition, because people fortunate enough to be purchasing luxury items should be able to look beyond their own comfort to someone else's suffering and count that into their cost, take one look at this "deal" and say: no way.
Then again, for years GE has made parts for nuclear warheads, and I don't see the anti-war crowd buying less of their stuff. Actually, I shouldn't say that. Some might take it as a positive endorsement.
was a strange mix of negative comments -- horrific near-slave working conditions in China, coupled with... no S-video output? Cause if it had the S-video connection, I'd be in there!
Seriously, though, as we insist on human rights (never mind fair wages and conditions)as the basis for the entire world, not just our citizens (and not just out mid/upper classes), prices will go up. That's as it should be. We have arrived at a time of unprecedented purchasing power, and have done so at the cost of people we don't have to see or hear on a daily basis. No labour rallies in the streets or our factories, and no one (including my country, Canada) seems willing to cut ties with a powerful trade nation such as China over a little thing like human rights. As long as they're not crushing people with tanks, of course. That upsets the missus.
Check my previous posts and you'll see where I stand on this, but I do believe in exploring all the possible counter-arguments, and I have this one in mind:
are video games different creatures psychologically than movies and other media because of their interactive nature? Yes, violent movies desensitize us, and we've traditionally been careful with how that violence is portrayed, rather than a body-count type of philosophy (ie: is the cold-blooded killer a hero or a villain?).
My background is in psych (and my childhood spent playing video games), so I am curious: is digital emulation different than mere passive exposure in the degree to which it influences us? I've recently played through both Deus Ex and Max Payne, and let me tell you, I'm a cold blooded digital killer. In real life? I don't think so. But it's easy to sneer at influences -- I have free will; I'm not a machine -- but of course in a very real way, a machine I am, and even the pragmatists must admit the existence of conditioning.
Unlike Activision's "Gladiators of Rome". I set out to begin my first fight, and the game reminds me: "You have to buy slaves, first". That took me aback, a bit.
Good quote, Doc. I've always liked it. But I believe we all start out good, or at least neutral with a tendency toward pacifism. Then someone kills half your family and spoils your whole day. Suddenly, what matters but the war machine?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, in Canada we've found that, recently, girls are doing better in math than boys.
What I find interesting is the reaction.
Girls doing worse = something wrong with our school system.
Boys doing worse = way to go girls! boys just aren't as motivated.
That's just a fact of distribution. Few naysayers mean fewer places for naythinking modders to put their points.
I remember this full well. In fact, it came back to me most strongly while reading the Graham article. This was 1989-1993 (undergrad) and the strongest campus movement was feminism, of that particular bent when taken up by the young without a sense of proportion and with what came to be considered "backlash" against male oppressive rule. Oh, I should mention that this was also in the honours psychology program, probably hit harder by this current than, say, electrical engineering.
The thing about stifling dissent is that when a critical mass is reached, it isn't that you have to be strong enough to dissent; you have to be foolish. I can remember a criminology class where the prof spent the same amount of time on feminist theory as all other theories put together, and since she encouraged outrageous emotional attacks on males in general, that became the tone the class as a whole (already 90% female, no doubt due to the prof's reputation which I unfortunately had not known). First I think there were five guys, then four, then three, two, and finally, just me, by which time the critical mass had obviously been reached and half the class would be spent in rants.
Finally the prof makes the observation that males receive heavier sentences than females for all types of crimes, regardless of circumstance and criminal record held constant. This she attributed to discrimination against women. That was it. I'd had it. I dissented. She said that female criminals were not being taken "as seriously" as male criminals and in that way, were not allowed to advance in their chosen career. Well, you can imagine how well the class took my dissent, and I was reviled for even questioning doctrine (ie: the prof's words). That was the last class I attended in that course, but if you blame me, then you have never withstood that measure of social abuse. Also, I was young.
Graham makes the important point: you should exercise the utmost mental freedom but be careful about what you express; the freedom to think what you will is more important than to say what you will, and you cannot join every battle unless you're to become Chomsky. Well, true enough. But every person has their limits.
The problem with Chomsky (or really, with others as they react to him) is that we seem to intrinsically rebel against any suggestion of tainted free will. Tell someone that commercials statistically influence human behaviour, subconsciously, and they'll probably agree. Tell them that this probably means them, too, and they'll protest.
Tell people that their own views are already the products of shaping and they will brand you a heretic.
Unfortunately time is a factor.
Most people outside of China believe that Tibetans should have been free, also, but at this point -- directly related to Chinese policy of forced migration and settlement (sound familiar?) -- it is too late without even more displacement.
Nice catch, PT.
There be loads and loads of westerners who blame America for 9/11. If you haven't heard it, it's probably because it's "heresy" to say so. Israel, however, is a new one.
And let's not forget about their use of ancient symbolism
I don't imagine Jackie O passed around this childhood photo of herself much during the presidency
I think it is relevant.
Lots of things were acceptable not that long ago that aren't now. It's never sufficient to say "you don't have it that bad because". Suffering isn't relative. Only to the disinterested bystander could it be. And as trading partners, political partners, and as consumers, we are involved. Our hands are dirty. So it's not simply a matter of "staying out of it". We're in it. The question is how to behave in a way that fits our, current standards for how we believe people should be treated.
I find it hard to blame those who don't know any better. But those who do know better from experience, and look the other way -- there are no excuses for that.
Sorry, but you're still missing a crucial point.
I'm Canadian, so let's say that my advantages came partly from British oppression rather than American. My being born here, however, has not a thing to do with it. Not to get overly philosophical -- I mean, obviously, genetically, here was the place for "me" to be. But as an accident of birth, I cannot be born into guilt, only things. Do I recognize the barbarity that put these things here in this way? (cleared the land of Natives, allowed my parents and grandparents to farm here, erm, kept the manifest destiny hounds at bay) Absolutely. But I did not partake in it, and in no way is any of it my "fault".
Now, the flipside of this is, I could have been born in China. In poverty. In Africa, with AIDS. In Sierra Leone, or East Timor, or Afghastan or Palestine. The way I see it, I owe some blood and effort and cold hard cash to try to settle that score. Not because I'm "guilty" through my birth but because my birth has nothing to do with it. I don't intrinsically "deserve" the wealth of my forefathers any more than I deserve their guilt.
I can see where you're coming from regarding the "imposition" of human rights on the third world. It's a little like telling other nations: sorry, no experimentation with nuclear weapons, because we've already done all ours (at least, that was true until recently). There are many voices in the developing world making your claim, and it's important to recognize just what a head start achieves in terms of capital (and the ability to set the agendas of your trading partners, quite importantly), not to mention impose relationships and deals through an imbalance of power. That is seldom recognized, as many on "my" side of this debate see it as imposing the same human rights regime across the board (rather than your observation of past to present).
When it comes down to it, we know that the Earth cannot sustain western living for 6 billion+, each family with its own refridgerator, car, air conditioner. There's a lot of pretense about the "developing world" and how far they will be permitted to go before it adversely affects our standard of living. But surely human rights, however, comprise a bedrock of standards that cross that line. If it's about competition aka money, well it wouldn't be beyond belief if deals were made and money offered on the basis of adherence to basic codes of conduct. For that to happen, however, we need to be more concerned about those rights than we are about those dollars, and so far, I don't see it balancing out that way.
Good show! I hadn't re-visited that issue since the boycott (which where I was did not seem terribly effective), and didn't know that they had gotten out. Nice to know it works once in awhile. Less excuse not to do so again.
Money going into a country at all is a big benefit, wether it goes to workers, a corporation, or a government.
Eventually that money works its way into the hands of the workers, wether it's the company president getting themselves a new yacht built, or a politician buying a new jet.
No, and no. Trickle-down economics is a farce, and will continue to be as long as owners hoard earnings and prepare their golden parachutes in case it all falls apart. (often leaving massive debt in their wake)
I'm really sorry I can't explain Miss Klein's ideas more thoroughly; it's been awhile since I read it, but I wasn't making excuses. The use of tax-free trade zones ensure that the host country gets little for the effort, and in a bizarre twist, makes what goes on in these sweatshops a matter beyond local police control. In other words, a complete disaster.
Did a voice in the marketplace even make the slightest difference to getting companies to implement these policies?
Um, yes. Did you think the owners just got together and decided that these changes would be a good idea?
There's so many more workers in China it's only a matter of time (and very little at that compared to the US, IMHO) before workers there demand more, and decide to demand it in groups.
Well, now you're talking sense. Because an overabundance of workers in our workforce certainly translates to power for those workers. Oh wait, it doesn't. 10 workers for every job usually means that if you even hint at unhappiness with your lot, they can find others to do it without complaint.
Says to impoverished family: "Sorry, but I'll hedge my bets"
No kidding.
I agree 100% with your first paragraph, but this is not (for me) about superiority in the marketplace, preventing equalization of an advantage that was certainly ill-gained. If you got that anywhere from my comments, I'd be surprised.
I am, however, not a country, but a person. I am not responsible for what others have done, but I am responsible for what I do, and what a nifty way to avoid responsibility to say that we've done wrong and it would be hypocrisy to act now. I'm not talking about the U.S. bombing anybody. I'm talking about consumers making choices on the basis of something other than their wallet. For those people who have done wrong, it is never hypocrisy to admit mistakes and change, and in this case we're not talking about former slave owners. I'm sorry, but I don't inherit the guilt of my forefathers. I didn't choose to be born here any more than someone chose to be born in China, but that is the root of our responsibility toward change. We are a product of our times; I'm not saying that we in the age of exploration would have done so much better or kinder. But we can. TODAY.
The slave workers have it better in the factories than their previous alternatives (farming, unemployment).
You know, I was telling my slave the same thing the other day.
except that our workers had a voice in the marketplaces where their items were being sold. They were in many cases the very families these companies depended on to buy their products. Globalization (long before it was called that) changed all of that. Foreign manufacturers are under no pressure to change as long as we keep buying their items, and it's not like the average third world worker has a lot of personal contact with average Western Joe Consumer. The old excuse used to be: well, sure, we can stop buying from Vietnam, but manufacturing will just move to Thailand; sure we can stop there, but then there's China. China was always the worst-case scenario. Well, sooner or later there will be no safe havens left for this kind of operation, but it isn't gonna happen without pressure from the people buying the stuff.
You're right about much of the spectrum of products being created in these conditions. With clothing, at this point, I think I can afford Malaysia, but no way Italy. Make no mistake, real difference will mean a (gasp) standard of living difference to the West. You just can't get a cup of coffee for fifty cents if someone isn't working their ass of for pennies an hour. The math doesn't work. But let's start small, eliminating the really egregious conditions. A good psychologist will tell you that your actions help shape who you are as you go. Maybe we'll find positive change addictive. It's better than war.
Sad, but probably true. But then leaving an abusive lover could make things worse rather than better -- in the short term. Supporting an oppressive but stable status quo is always safer. That isn't a reason to not try for change.
I know this sounds obnoxious, but I can't say it better than she can. Read Naomi Klein's "No Logo" if you want an inside look at how the export of manufacturing "aids" developing countries. She makes many technical (but important) observations about how the system is set up to take advantage but not benefit these workers and these countries.
I'll make the simpler argument: you don't support change but supporting the status quo. Employers in the west never volunteered minimum wage, child labour laws, working hour restrictions, etc, etc, etc. It had to be fought for, and these people don't have a voice in the marketplaces where their goods are being sold.
I think you're absolutely right that we shouldn't have to compete with that, though I'm using the word "shouldn't" a little differently.
I think the real world for most of us in the west involves moral choices versus -- of all things -- convenience, and petty cost (I mean, we're talking about DVDs, here. There should be no competition, because people fortunate enough to be purchasing luxury items should be able to look beyond their own comfort to someone else's suffering and count that into their cost, take one look at this "deal" and say: no way.
Then again, for years GE has made parts for nuclear warheads, and I don't see the anti-war crowd buying less of their stuff. Actually, I shouldn't say that. Some might take it as a positive endorsement.
I hope that's the worst thing I hear in 2004.
Somehow I don't think it's going to be.
was a strange mix of negative comments -- horrific near-slave working conditions in China, coupled with... no S-video output? Cause if it had the S-video connection, I'd be in there!
Seriously, though, as we insist on human rights (never mind fair wages and conditions)as the basis for the entire world, not just our citizens (and not just out mid/upper classes), prices will go up. That's as it should be. We have arrived at a time of unprecedented purchasing power, and have done so at the cost of people we don't have to see or hear on a daily basis. No labour rallies in the streets or our factories, and no one (including my country, Canada) seems willing to cut ties with a powerful trade nation such as China over a little thing like human rights. As long as they're not crushing people with tanks, of course. That upsets the missus.
Ouch!
Apparently Aens is spending his time elsewhere... on the anti-slash database, reproducing positive-response comments from other people.
Check my previous posts and you'll see where I stand on this, but I do believe in exploring all the possible counter-arguments, and I have this one in mind:
are video games different creatures psychologically than movies and other media because of their interactive nature? Yes, violent movies desensitize us, and we've traditionally been careful with how that violence is portrayed, rather than a body-count type of philosophy (ie: is the cold-blooded killer a hero or a villain?).
My background is in psych (and my childhood spent playing video games), so I am curious: is digital emulation different than mere passive exposure in the degree to which it influences us? I've recently played through both Deus Ex and Max Payne, and let me tell you, I'm a cold blooded digital killer. In real life? I don't think so. But it's easy to sneer at influences -- I have free will; I'm not a machine -- but of course in a very real way, a machine I am, and even the pragmatists must admit the existence of conditioning.
Thoughts?
Unlike Activision's "Gladiators of Rome". I set out to begin my first fight, and the game reminds me: "You have to buy slaves, first". That took me aback, a bit.
Wow, real-world, balanced thinking?
;)
Get back to work. Your time is better spent elsewhere, Aens.
Good quote, Doc. I've always liked it. But I believe we all start out good, or at least neutral with a tendency toward pacifism. Then someone kills half your family and spoils your whole day. Suddenly, what matters but the war machine?