Couldn't find my previous thread, so I figure this is worthy enough of its own thread.
edit: Hes tackling this very well and tactfully so far.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I thought this was pretty interesting. I still think the guy takes longer to make his point than is necessary but he definitely made some good points.
On that note, HAVE we seen a "Lisa vs Bioshock" thread yet?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
interestingly, I think that Bioshock game depicts about what I would expect to happen as the result of an Ayn Randian "utopian" society... Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually has Lisa ever posted any sort of endorsement of Objectivism? Libertarianism yes, but Objectivism is like the extreme version of that thought.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So on the basis of a title of a book, which she intended to provoke (and clearly succeeded), you've drawn conclusions about an entire philosophy.
And Morbo, do you know why it's called Objectivism? It's because it rejects anyone having a privileged position in the world by nature. Because objectively, we all have the same rights. So at the same time that I insist on my rights as an individual, I insist on your rights as an individual.
You're setting up a strawman, here. If I say that I am not obligated to help someone else, that doesn't mean that I don't think they matter. It means that they don't own me. That their needs don't trump my rights. No more do my needs trump your rights. And that's the fundamental thing about Objectivism. Every single thing I could say about myself from the standpoint of Objectivism is something I must apply to you as well. And to everyone else in the world. That's called being objective. That's called not trying to think that my issues are so important that you can be forced to surrender your property or time or money for my sake. And neither are yours so important that I can be so forced.
It's about respecting individuals. It's about taking the high path, and trying to convince people that they should help (if that's what you think they should do), rather than putting a governmental gun to their head and telling them that you've already decided they're going to help.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: When was the last time anyone heard me use that phrase? And I'm probably the closest to a die-hard Rand-worshipping Randroid on this forum.
(Actually, I'm just an Objectivist; but I suspect I'm more die-hard about it than anyone else here.)
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
He's cool, but i prefer that he cuts his stuff down somethings. i think he tends to over(lol)explain himself once in awhile.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
"a bit more complicated" "a bit more complicated" "a bit more complicated"... gaaah! What an annoying voice. I enjoyed his reasoning, but his prose and delivery need work.
The idea of boycotting Shadow Complex because OSC receives some compensation for game sales stretches the concept of boycott to an extent where it's no longer useful. At some point in your life - and possibly on a daily basis - you're going to give money to some one who you strongly disagree with, and that some one may even give that money to a political organization you detest. You're not giving a person that money for the sake of forwarding a political objective, you're giving that person money in exchange for some goods or service. How he or she spends that money shouldn't really be your concern. (unless you want to ask every waiter you tip whether he'll use your money to, say, get drunk that evening)
On the other hand, I can certainly see the justification of boycotting products because the company you're buying from openly endorses views you disagree with. Consider boycotting Wal*Mart due to it's usage of sweat shops, for example. I'm not denying the power of boycott, I just think those calling for a boycott of Shadow Complexes due to it being inspired by a book by a person who disapproves of gay marriages is a poor use of that power.
[ October 24, 2009, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There's nothing morally wrong with 3rd world sweat shops, they provide an economic improvement to the lifestyles of 3rd world nations, the alternative is usually back breaking labour in the hot sun.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Some sweat shops use true coercion -- not letting workers leave the premises at all, for instance.
However, many of what get called sweat shops turn out to be places where the workers are paid better wages to do easier work in long hours (but that aren't any longer than what many Americans work) that are shorter than their previous hours, often with dorms better than available housing otherwise with better amenities and recreational facilities. The applicant lists are thousands and thousands long.
The typical fall-back assertion is that the "sweat shops" might be better now, but that their presence holds back progress in wages and working conditions. This just isn't born out by evidence; many of the places with the highest growth rates (including in the standard of living of the lowest quartiles) are places where there are large numbers of "sweat shops", down to small regions.
Protest specific coercive practices of third-world factories, yes. Protest regimes that prevent those workers from having legal protections, and work to create those protections, yes. Protest the wages people are being paid, no. Protest the existence of the factories, no.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
agreed.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
When this dude dropped the f-bomb I had a huge moment of "Angry Video Game Nerd" vertigo.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Actually has Lisa ever posted any sort of endorsement of Objectivism? Libertarianism yes, but Objectivism is like the extreme version of that thought.
Gah. Libertarianism is watered down Objectivism. Don't put the cart before the horse.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I thought this was pretty interesting. I still think the guy takes longer to make his point than is necessary but he definitely made some good points.
On that note, HAVE we seen a "Lisa vs Bioshock" thread yet?
Who/What is Bioshock?
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
It's a video game mentioned in the video, which has sort of an anti-Randian theme.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote: which has sort of an anti-Randian theme.
Assuming that by "sort of" you mean "it's the whole point of the game." (I don't know that the game makes the point particularly intelligently, but it's pretty blatant about it).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote: which has sort of an anti-Randian theme.
Assuming that by "sort of" you mean "it's the whole point of the game." (I don't know that the game makes the point particularly intelligently, but it's pretty blatant about it).
The actual overall lesson of Bioshock is not against Rand but rather against having too much faith in your ideology, treating it like a religion. Rapture, Andrew Ryan and the other objectivists etc. act like cautionary tales because they refuse to factor in real-life issues and realistic appraisals of human nature into their non-compromising ideology. They choose to think of their ideology as flawless, they choose to think of themselves as flawless because they intend to be the ones who drive the 'stagnant swamp' of the status quo forward with their innovation. So all it takes is one unexpected variable (ADAM) to turn Rapture into a giant trainwreck.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: There's nothing morally wrong with 3rd world sweat shops, they provide an economic improvement to the lifestyles of 3rd world nations, the alternative is usually back breaking labour in the hot sun.
My point was about the usefulness of boycotting, not about sweat shops, but since we've gone this way...
To be more specific, my problem isn't with sweat shops. I don't like them, but many (or even most) of the products we use here in N. America are manufactured in sweat shop environments. It's hard to get around them. (though I've bought all my clothing from Good Will since I started making money as an effort to limit my direct contribution)
My problem is with Wal*Mart's sweat shops. Specifically, numerous cases of (illegally) underpaying their employees, denying overtime compensation, refusing any liability for on site injuries - and by extension denying the basic human right of a safe workplace, frequently breaking contract with employees, in some cases I've seen documented by partially or entirely refusing promised pay, coercing employees to remain working by threatening them or their families, beating employees as a punitive measure, and more or less treating their employees like slaves instead of human beings. In many cases, these aren't just sweat shop Wal*Mart contracts labor from, they're sweat shops owned and run by the Wal*Mart corporation.
The documentation of this has been pretty extensive for years. A google search of "Wal*Mart human rights abuses" will get you quite a good bit of reading material, this is something to get you started.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sweat shops owned and run? Perhaps you could provide one or two examples of incidents as you described in, say, the last five years.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Sweat shops owned and run? Perhaps you could provide one or two examples of incidents as you described in, say, the last five years.
quote:In October 10, 2002, the National Organization for Women (NOW) reported that the Maine Department of Labor ordered Wal-Mart to pay the largest fine in state history for violating child labor laws. The Department of Labor discovered 1,436 child labor law infractions at 20 Wal-Mart chains in the state.
Hopefully the New York Times isn't too dubious of a source for you.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The December 2006 article isn't about a sweatshop Walmart owns or runs. Some of the practices are abhorrent if true, others aren't -- for instance, minimum wage violations are so routine in China (often because the minimum wage laws are political sops to activists) I have little issue with violating that, provided the company is up front with the workers about the pay. I am not okay with back pay being confiscated. I am not okay with toxic solvents being used with no protection.
This is not an exhaustive list of my opinions, just a few to give an idea of what I would consider okay and what I would not. However, I do not take the press release as fact. Indeed, I am rather annoyed at the nebulous references to "reports" having been released revealing problems without any mention of exactly what reports are being talked about.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Regarding the child labor problems, they are bad, though the parts that are problems (too young people working dangerous machinery) seem to be isolated (and corrected). Most of the other accusations seem to be that teenagers occasionally worked too many hours. Something that isn't good, especially as a pattern, but looks to have been oversight (and according to Wal-Mart didn't happen -- they say the times teenagers worked past acceptable hours for a school night weren't school nights, but nights before holidays), and corrected.
edit: and funny you should talk about the NYT not being too dubious of a source, when the only things that verifiably happened were a very few incidents where an employee who wasn't supposed to handled a routine sort of power tool. While Wal-Mart shouldn't let it happen, I'm not going to be terribly worked about the corporation up by a late teen using a chain saw. Everything else in the article was resolved in a settlement without admission of wrongdoing, and is not talked of as fact. Be careful you don't mix up reporting of accusations as fact; there are too many cases where that hasn't been the case.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The December 2006 article isn't about a sweatshop Walmart owns or runs.
Perhaps "owns and runs" in the wrong terminology, but it's a much deeper relationship than you'd experience in supplier factories and retailers here in the states. Often times Walmart is the sole contractor, or the largest of a few contractors purchasing from these sweat shops, and the sweat shops are producing Walmart brand material. Walmart dictates the price, quantity, and quality expectations for these products, and then ignores (if not outright encourages) the human rights violations often committed to supply them.
Honestly, I don't really feel much like debating the issue - I only brought it up as a counter example of a company that is routinely boycotted and then felt a little miffed by Blayne's reply that there is "nothing wrong with sweat shops."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote: which has sort of an anti-Randian theme.
Assuming that by "sort of" you mean "it's the whole point of the game." (I don't know that the game makes the point particularly intelligently, but it's pretty blatant about it).
The actual overall lesson of Bioshock is not against Rand but rather against having too much faith in your ideology, treating it like a religion. Rapture, Andrew Ryan and the other objectivists etc. act like cautionary tales because they refuse to factor in real-life issues and realistic appraisals of human nature into their non-compromising ideology. They choose to think of their ideology as flawless, they choose to think of themselves as flawless because they intend to be the ones who drive the 'stagnant swamp' of the status quo forward with their innovation. So all it takes is one unexpected variable (ADAM) to turn Rapture into a giant trainwreck.
Exactly. There's dialogue that is specifically about Andrew Ryan's inability to compromise.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I actually just got Bioshock. But my cd drive isnt working, and it's pissing me off.
Was system shock 2 the same way thematically? And, where can I find System Shock 2?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Might be enlightening.
Posted by LukeP (Member # 11656) on :
I'm somewhat of an objectivist and Bioshock didn't bother me.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Honestly, I don't really feel much like debating the issue - I only brought it up as a counter example of a company that is routinely boycotted and then felt a little miffed by Blayne's reply that there is "nothing wrong with sweat shops."
Consider that the alternatives in these countries are things like subsistence agriculture and prostitution (often child prostitution) or the opportunity to work in a factory for a better wage. The US used to run on sweatshops and child labor but we developed past a point where they were necessary. Countries currently using sweatshops and child labor will develop to a point where they are no longer needed as well, but they have to develop in their own time. In the mean time, and in many cases, sweatshops are a better alternative to other ways of earning a living in these countries.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Exactly, sure they'r crappy and in some cases easily abuse but in the bigger picture they are a far better alternative then subsistence farming.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Honestly, I don't really feel much like debating the issue - I only brought it up as a counter example of a company that is routinely boycotted and then felt a little miffed by Blayne's reply that there is "nothing wrong with sweat shops."
Consider that the alternatives in these countries are things like subsistence agriculture and prostitution (often child prostitution) or the opportunity to work in a factory for a better wage. The US used to run on sweatshops and child labor but we developed past a point where they were necessary. Countries currently using sweatshops and child labor will develop to a point where they are no longer needed as well, but they have to develop in their own time. In the mean time, and in many cases, sweatshops are a better alternative to other ways of earning a living in these countries.
Let me quote myself since you must have missed it the first time:
quote:my problem isn't with sweat shops.
Again, I'm not against the existence of sweat shops - I recognize them as a part of the process of industrial revolution. I am against companies like Walmart using or even encouraging sweatshops that break contract, withhold or deny promised pay, beat their workers, threaten their families, and essentially treat their workers like slaves. Surely you can see the difference? It's like accusing me of being an anarchist for protesting cases of police brutality.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by LukeP: I'm somewhat of an objectivist and Bioshock didn't bother me.
I'm also somewhat of an Objectivist (maybe more than somewhat), and while at times the slant of the game was distracting, overall I felt most of it was so well done I really didn't mind.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)