Wherever it may come from, I think many people are happy to have an angle to attack a certain category of Chinese for their perception and treatment of animals.
The hunting and extinction of species due to these ridiculous primitive beliefs is utterly repugnant in this day and age where we teeter on the brink of environmental disaster and mass extinctions with climate and other causes.
Exchanging true fascinating living treasures of earth evolved over millions of years all the way back to this planets creation for some baubles and to satisfy their tummies or supposedly treat some fucking wart, or even save them from a heart attack, really, those selfish beings are worth the torture and extinctions ?
It also simply hurts and inspires rage to truly consider and witness the absolutely mind boggling levels of cruelty shown in the hunting, keeping and processing of these animals.
How is one to like humans that think themselves so superior and special over everything else that they may be allowed to do anything? Its the worst of "humanity" and we can be well glad to loose that aspect of it.
Unfortunately may these Chinese with disregard and 0 empathy for animals be a minority or not of, the scale of the country make it too many by far.
That's a trick, doormat. Work to live, not live to work.
Just think of the C level shit eating grins when you struggle financially, holding on tight to your pride...jeez
Maybe its the sacred lands sacred destiny to offer us a view into the cosmos, who has any better clue than any one else to guess divine intents of any kind ?
I presume they have some sort of source of truth for this stuff like a religious scripture or oral tradition, but this should be obvious and I fail to see how you could have missed it.
> There are many conflicting beliefs and values held and no way to keep everyone happy
Lets have a look at how history has gone. "We need a nuclear test site. The French decided Tahiti would be the best place". "We need a site to test the hydrogen bomb. The Americans decided Marshall islands would be the best place". Both those victim populations now suffer the consequences of those actions of a much more powerful country. Hawaii's history is also muddied with colonialism. Perhaps having a shred of empathy and respect might be a better way to start engaging with them about building a telescope rather than using the "tried and true" "fuck them" approach you're implying is appropriate.
I respond with respect and empathy to those who extend it first.
>How about you have a shred of respect for the people whose sacred land it is and whose understanding defines what's acceptable use? Rather than being a selfish, arrogant colonialist.
This was not that.
And hell, look at what is actually happening here. First, he allowance of the TMT was in exchange for the closure of 5 other telescopes of which their areas would then be restored. Second, and perhaps more importantly, most natives are perfectly fine / support the telescope too, judging by the provided polls (72/15 support/oppose). The anti-telescope group is a minority of the natives.
A nitpick though, the analogy that you're using is absolutely terrible. In what way is a telescope analogous to a nuclear test? Where is the "more powerful country"?
> You don't avoid beef because it's a sacred animal to Hindus.
No, but you wouldn't build a slaughterhouse next door to a temple, would you?
The request here is for respect. You're moving from "no way to keep everyone happy" to "fuck them" in the space of two sentences, which tells me you put effectively zero value on actually keeping anyone happy. That... just doesn't say good things about you as a person.
> Think about infant mortality, sanitation or historical practices like suttee.
Those are (I presume) referring to instances where the colonised were 'bad', and the colonisers have done 'good' (to put it in simplistic terms). I agree that there are such instances! There are also instances where the colonised were 'good', and the colonisers have done 'bad'. Or, if the presence of any 'bad'ness is enough to lead one to be an appropriate target for colonisation, there are also instances where the colonisers' civilisation was 'bad'. How many of each? Well, obviously my position is that colonisers overall do much more harm than good. Maybe that's not true, but you won't disprove it by mentioning a couple of good things that they've done.
(There are also instances where keepers of slaves have done good, but that doesn't mean we condone slavery.)
Simplistic terms don't advance your point. If you do have a point oversimplification only obscures it. Imperialism is neither good nor bad. Only specific acts and actors can be judged as such.
The British empire could be credited for ending slavery. It is the promulgation of liberal western values allows us the context to condemn the barbarity of the past.
History is a process. It seems nonsensical to presume to judge the pioneers of our civilization (by modern standards) while enjoying the benefits they provided.
The popular view of western guilt smacks of condescending nobelesse oblige. At what point does it become purely selfish? Decolonized regions won't put the past behind them as long as they are incentivized not to.
"...detractors of Western imperialism hijack the ideas of Western civilization and crash them into a ditch."
I think there is some definite educational and inspirational value to Maker Fair and magazine. I guess that's more domain of non profits, but maybe some philanthropic education funds could lend a hand for the more educational aspects.
Of interest an exceptional example of educational community around "maker stuff" funded by a great shop is https://www.adafruit.com/about , a lot of excellent work there!
And the answer to that, is a good dose of misanthropy ;)
"People are shit", well, you see, not all, of course not, but a majority of shitty, poorly educated, selfish, "dishonest by default"(constantly lie to themselves and others) people are reproducing at great rate, raising further awful human beings.
Sadly at a greater rate than families to be composed of empathic people with innate positive moral bend in them are. And such people are already largely outnumbered, raising their reproductive rate will not allow outpacing the others.
They would bring positive influence to the world through their children, assuming the general ambient corruptions/experiences around them do not overpower the parents influence (do these parents even have time to impart enough of "them" to their children to make "good" people ?)
A lot of terms in "" by which I wish to indicate these are massively grey concepts that can be debated at length, but I hope to convey my general gist.
And then, maybe some people are getting put off by the exposure to negative human behavior around them and wish to surround themselves with purer creatures they cannot fault - a popular one of these beings being dogs among other pets :D
The more familiar one gets with them the more one is struck in awe at the absolute sweetness and "goodness" present in many creatures of the animal kingdom, a concentration of which through breeding is highly present in pets)
Don't think so. Selfish, "dishonest by default" tend to be attracted into business rather then having large families. Having children costs you practically. Moreover it makes harder to keep stable partner. There might be larger population of impulsive people having kids or people who never had much chance to be fulfilled by job, but "dishonest by default" I would expect more among high management and those have less kids.
Dishonest by default starts with the little things, the tons of white lies people tell themselves and each other day to day, perpetrating falsehoods which become accepted as truth by enough of their social entourage accepting and adopting these lies themselves, reinforcing each other - see immoral actions from organised structures of all kinds, from religious to governmental to simply a local village society...a classic example ostracizing and disowning a woman who had poor sexual education for falling pregnant...the whole village is behind perpetrating the lie that this is the just and moral thing to do...
How else are by example are some religious societies so far from the teachings of the books they venerate ?
I am talking about the human condition all round, not to specific first world cases. Picture countless struggling working poor, right out poor, and yes also more or less financially successful people.
Usually I would venture growing up poor, working poor, or in other forms of struggle imposed by lets say, a corrupt government regime will tend to put many of those people through a nasty time, this is not conducive to bringing the best out of people or letting good sentiments develop.
An effect of the hardship and stress of these life situations beget substance abuse and other psychological problems which get carried on down to the children through traumatic upbringing.
Most large families are by far to be found in struggling communities, for good and bad reasons...
That's not a third world phenomenon though. It's a nasty, unfortunate case of groupthink that sadly human beings are very susceptible to.
You see the same thing with regards to treatment of people who were convicted of crimes that they were later acquitted of but society at large still treats them like they were an actual offender.
Reminds me too of stories where people get in trouble with scammers in foreign countries and the authorities are never on their side and no one will listen and there just is no logic.
It's a harrowing and horrible account to read. It's a stark realization to come to that human beings basically aren't capable of computing the "truth", so things like logical argument and rationality and evidence actually mean nothing. They appear to work a lot of the time and you have to be careful about that because it's somewhat of an illusion. The only thing we value is consensus, and once we think we've reached it the process for coming to it stops. So if you're on the wrong side of consensus and every single person is buying into the consensus and there is no one willing to permit dissent then you are very screwed. Logic doesn't exist at that point as the majority doesn't need to persuade and you have no coalition and therefore no power.
Reminds me of Man's Search For Meaning and 7 Days to Live My Life and most of the middle ages really.
Its certainly more than a case a groupthink that "humans" are susceptible to.
Well educated non zealot humans are certainly less susceptible to it....anyways
If we take intralizee's recounting of the events as correct there are several levels of horrific corruption, abuse of power and religious fanaticism involved. The not wanting to even know what is going on as long as they can bill the "patient", the tons of prejudice...jesus there are soooo many levels of wrong going in there, read again, please.
Third world is maybe the wrong way to describe it, by it I am meaning the levels of corruption and poorly educated people on display there.
In a way though it is way worse, there is a horrifically well engineered synergy between state/private entities here at play to extract money from the patient's insurance whilst severely violating his rights.
I've read it, read it and re-read it. My conclusion stands.
Abstract your level of analysis up and away from the specific doctrinal belief systems at play here and look to the fundamental operating system of human beings.
It's not that "those people" were corrupt. It's that the operating system has some fundamentally hideous bugs in it that most of the time go unnoticed. Until they don't. Especially when they show up in concert like this.
You might call them zealots and uneducated. The problem is they were simply faithful to a specific doctrine in which they were likely well educated. There are many scenarios in which you can suddenly find yourself on the wrong side of that.
There are a strikingly large number of pretty scary "features" in the operating system of individuals and groups. That things like this happen isn't surprising. Its horrifying, but I can't say it's surprising.
If you break it down to the simplest level there are only three types of action. 1) what you want to do 2) what you are willing to do 3) what you are not willing to not do
Three things basically underpin that. a) beliefs b) incentives c) social pressures
Do the math on it. It's scary to see how easily this kind of thing can happen. When no one has an incentive to stop it and when they have significant disincentives against stopping it, and when they think it is good and they think that's what everyone else thinks.
Take a long hard look at the history of how people have treated other people over time. How many cognitive bias traps we fall into. How unable we are to come to agreement about controversial issues. Being deeply flawed is our M.O. It's why rich stream of messed up shit happens every single day.
I would think your assessment is correct for approaching things at first glance but I would say the people who abused me were "corrupt" at the end of the day. Not sure if that is the best word but I'll use it. I took it as far as possible for me to examine if they were corrupt and came to this conclusion. You're corrupt when the other person who has been traumatized by you (unjustly as well), goes through a lengthy processes of doing whatever is legally possible to illustrate the abuse and you choose to deny it. I found out the hospital, the university police and even the fbi would rather me not have any remedy to the torture I went through and for their illusions to not be shattered. Even my insurance that was billed wouldn't do anything when I reported it. HIPAA was even violated as the hospital lawyer had access to my complete medical history without my consent. I reported that and I doubt the government agencies did anything. Born with faith in the system, as I would prefer the logic of systems to emotional individualists. Yet, I learned the systems are completely broken for the wealthy.
Sure. I'm not in disagreement with your conclusion. It depends on which level you do the analysis at as to the exact conclusion you draw.
You mentioned you were born with faith in the system and would prefer logic of emotion. This is precisely why I make the argument at a higher level of abstraction. I believe the default viewpoint is the one u put forward that we tend to assume people are reasonable. It's an unwarranted assumption that leads us to a dangerous place and a healthy dose of skepticism goes a long way.
I believe the best way to make progress on these issues is for the wider public to understand how deeply flawed our systems for coming to conclusions are and to promote and permit dissent in order to raise the quality of thinking and decision making. That's much easier to do when at least some people are willing to say "well now hold on... it could be that WE are actually wrong about this and that warrants discussion". That's what would have given you a chance.
"Gloria Jean’s was the best job I ever had, because it was the only time I felt like there was community to be found in an unnatural environment built solely for the purpose of buying things. I care more about the women who worked there than I do, no offense, about anyone I met in school or from Twitter"
Makes me think of the movie Clerks, and other depictions of this spirit of community in a unnatural commercial environment.
Somehow the environment greatly strengthens these human connection. I do have nostalgia for these days. Corporations, instead of perfecting this kind of warmth and making the working environment tolerable, perfected exploitation. Always short sighted short term profit.
That reminds me of one of my favorite comedy series, Party Down. It was canceled largely because two of the actors (Adam Scott and Jane Lynch) were pulled into two major network shows (Parks & Recreation and Glee, respectively).
The hunting and extinction of species due to these ridiculous primitive beliefs is utterly repugnant in this day and age where we teeter on the brink of environmental disaster and mass extinctions with climate and other causes.
Exchanging true fascinating living treasures of earth evolved over millions of years all the way back to this planets creation for some baubles and to satisfy their tummies or supposedly treat some fucking wart, or even save them from a heart attack, really, those selfish beings are worth the torture and extinctions ?
It also simply hurts and inspires rage to truly consider and witness the absolutely mind boggling levels of cruelty shown in the hunting, keeping and processing of these animals. How is one to like humans that think themselves so superior and special over everything else that they may be allowed to do anything? Its the worst of "humanity" and we can be well glad to loose that aspect of it.
Unfortunately may these Chinese with disregard and 0 empathy for animals be a minority or not of, the scale of the country make it too many by far.