Once I was present at a discussion between a seasoned quantum optics expert
and a group of aspiring physicists, and he asked us which interpretation
of quantum mechanics do we prefer. Some chose the standard Copenhagen interpretation,
others chose the Many Worlds interpretation, or an interpretation
with hidden variables, and so on. But just over half of those present agreed
on the standard interpretation.
And the expert agreed - why? Because, as he put it, everything that had ever
been done in the field of quantum physics had been done using the Copenhagen interpretation.
The way I see it, other interpretations have no purpose except to reconcile
what we observe on small scales with incorrect statements such as
"electron is a tiny ball", or "electron is a wave in the three-dimensional space",
or "an observer which are themselves composed of quantum mechanical particles
is independent of the system, and exerts free will to choose measurements
while the observed system is purely deterministic".
The idea is that many jobs do not contribute to "technology,healthcare,engineering, etc.", rather, salaries and work assignments are regulated to simply force people to spend most of their lives doing meaningless activities as a form of social control.
Even Ted Kaczynski talked about "surrogate activities".
Yeah, how can a narrative book like that be "debunked"? The author wasn't making a logical argument. There is no facts and data. It's an emotional and moral argument. Certain jobs contribute nothing to the world and extract a cost on the psyche of the employee.
The irony is that the socialist system he wished for produces the most bullshit jobs, as in bureaucracy upon bureaucracy. That's also the simple solution to why they exist: governments don't really care about efficiency, as they don't spend their own money. So you have bullshit jobs in bureaucracy, and in people having to cater to bureaucracy.
There are plenty of cases of efficient and inefficient processes in both capitalist and socialist systems, if any can be described as being wholly one or the other anymore. As a direct example to your point, compare the amount of bureaucracy in the US healthcare system to the UK's NHS (and how much extra that costs people per capita), or many other countries that are described as having socialist healthcare systems
> to simply force people to spend most of their lives doing meaningless activities as a form of social control.
This is a human universal. Even uncontacted hunter gatherer tribes spend most of their days doing absolutely nothing useful whatsoever. They sit around and talk shit with their friends. This is not social control. Humans doing nothing useful for most of the day is the norm.
I agree with everything except leave the children behind. That should be a decision made by the judge on who is the better parent or at least a sharing based situation.
As a victim of IR35 in the UK I can only say that yes, it does happen often. But that's what taxes are mainly for: to prevent citizens from becoming economically independent, otherwise they could start asking why should they take commands from the some state centre.
Victim? Please. Everyone I know who was a contractor (disguised employee) knew the glory days were numbered, it was only a matter of time before they were required to pay taxes just like the rest of us.
The worrying thing about IR35 is not what it does to the middle classes ability to play tax games like the rich, but what implications it has for employment at the wage slave end of the scale.
> You can always tweak law to make criminal out of anyone inconvenient.
And this would be immoral and if you are suggesting the US is doing this you would need to actually back that up.
> Wasn't Assange's consensual sex relegated to rape?
Even if it was, that is not an example of tweaking the law to make a criminal out of anyone inconvenient, it is a case of tweaking the truth to fit the definition of something which is a crime, and should be a crime.
U.S. is just concerned that China, and not them, will get an edge in spying and the next industrial revolution. Speaking of human rights it should be noted that U.S. not only wantonly attacks or bullies other countries, but it also has the highest incarceration rate in the world - in absolute terms the number of inmates is comparable to that of China and India combined.
Regarding your first point, yes, that’s an interesting take. Regarding the criticism of the US, yes you’re probably correct, but this is a “what about” argument that doesn’t really aid the discussion in my opinion.
Whataboutism gets brought out too fast to dismiss discussion. Democratic systems project their values by demonstrating them. A democratic state that cannot show that its values work will have no ability to demand of others to emulate it.
In that context the failures of the US (as it is de-facto the standard-bearer of political liberalism in a broad sense), have real influence.
When the Chinese look around the world and they see the state of the US on imprisonment, racial conflict, failure during the current covid crisis and so on, this strengthens the domestic control of the party and the alternative autocratic system the government is advocating.
The US has certainly lost a lot of moral standing, and yes it makes it harder to criticize others, and it strengthens autocratic hands abroad to be able to point to the US' failures.
That said, the parent poster isn't the US government, but a private citizen raising a valid criticism of another country. So why can't it stand on its own, without a big show of self-criticism first? Can we not criticize others until our own house is in order? Once that happens, the discussion turns into an argument over moral equivalence or lack thereof -- ie. "the US' crimes are just as bad as China's!" versus "No these things are of completely different degrees!".
This line of argument quickly becomes tiring and, I think it completely muddles the original point, which is often what is intended when hurling "what about...!" into the discussion.
I hear what you're saying here, and no, our country doesn't have to be perfect before criticizing someone else.
But still, we should wonder if the criticism is motivated by something other than pure concern for human rights. You expect me to believe that Americans are mad at China strictly because they really, really care about the rights of muslims? With our record and our allies' records?
Or is it possible that this is just motivated by geopolitical interest?
I believe that people who claim to be mad at Chinese human rights abuses are mostly genuine in their feelings. They also have a blind spot for the abuses of their own country and their allies. That blind spot probably comes from the part of ourselves that's very tribal, as well as a social and political environment that ignores and minimizes self-criticism.
Now, if we're talking about the US state department, then absolutely they're doing it for geopolitical interests. However, they're also reflecting the concerns of at least some of their citizens.
I'd also like to note that there's a moral equivalence argument to be made here. It's possible that China's abuses are actually worse than our own. Or maybe not. I just want to acknowledge that aspect of this argument, but I don't want to get into it because I'm not really informed enough to make it, and I'm certain that 80% of that impression is formed by skimming headlines and whatnot, which is not really a proper basis for debate.
A consequentialist analysis would say that attacking China when it is almost impossible to influence while ignoring the abuses of your own government is even worse than inaction, because you are giving even more power to a state that is pretty much as bad.
I would be much more amenable to agreeing with the people that claim to be mad at China in the US if the solutions they proposed didn't give more power to US, that has no fundamental difference in foreign policy than China. Economically isolating China, for example, does absolutely nothing to help the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang, but gives a lot more power to the United States. But if the solutions that were being talked about changed the balance of power towards entities that didn't wantonly abuse human rights, I would entirely agree.
Therefore, I don't think it's whataboutism. It would be whataboutism if the claim was that China actually respects human rights because the US is worse. But the question is different - it's whether we should economically isolate China on the pretext of their human rights abuses, or not. Saying that the party that benefits from this and that is pushing it is fundamentally just as disrespectful of human rights is not whataboutism, it's a question of whether the proposed actions will do anything for human rights at all.
nobody is saying that that is worse than literal concentration camps, what people are saying is that failures to live up to racial justice at home weaken your ability to authentically criticize violations abroad, and that's a very valid point.
And as far as communications infrastructure is concerned it's relevant too. In countries like Germany or Eastern Europe in particular the behaviour of espionage among allies over recent years has created an atmosphere of "well everyone is spying on us anyway" substantially weakening the case against Huawei, say.
Also as far as discussion here is concerned, most people here are from Western countries, so at the end of the day discussions will mostly be about our own behaviours.
>weaken your ability to authentically criticize violations abroad
It does no such thing. Being a hypocrite does not impact the correctness or incorrectness of what you're saying (which is why the tu quoque fallacy is a fallacy), doubly so when we're talking about entirely different categories of abuses that invalidate the hypocrisy charge anyways.
correctness isn't what's relevant in (geo)politics. What matters is being able to influence others and get your interests across. And on that front being a hypocrite matters, both domestically as well as internationally.
Listing off fallacies is great in internet discussions, but it's not how the world works. To be honest it's also not really how internet discussions work any more because everyone's grown sick of it.
Scrum, Agile etc. is a nonsense which should be ended. The one reason why it is so popular is that it provides managers with opportunity to organize meetings - stand ups, planning, retrospectives,...
Why in the world would anyone reach out to other people to figure out what to do in the next 24 hours? The development of even a minor feature takes longer than that, and contrary to Agile principles cannot be arbitrarily split into smaller parts.
