Sharp: Closing a door [LWN.net]

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 14:24 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
In reply to: Sharp: Closing a door by scali23
Parent article: Sharp: Closing a door

Are you wearing a pair of trousers?

Well, a skirt actually, but your point is taken. A lot of our consumer goods are produced under appalling conditions and the only reason we ignore that is that the companies producing the goods go to enormous lengths to insulate us from what's going on. This distancing is the only way to get us to continue our behavior because it blunts our natural empathy.

And I would say that the system of exploitation that gives us ultra-cheap consumer goods at the expense of people's lives is in fact sociopathic. And just because we all participate in this system, it doesn't mean it's acceptable to allow nasty behavior on a mailing list. Just because we can't fix all of the problems in the world doesn't mean we have no responsibility for fixing any of them.

to post comments

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 17:48 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (1 responses)

A lot of our consumer goods are produced under appalling conditions and the only reason we ignore that is that the companies producing the goods go to enormous lengths to insulate us from what's going on.

It's also extremely difficult to avoid because almost all manufacturers are participating to one extent or another. Just try finding modern consumer goods- or commercially produced foods- that weren't produced by exploiting vulnerable workers. Unless you're willing to more-or-less drop out of modern society, you're benefiting from exploitation.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 6:25 UTC (Wed) by mjthayer (guest, #39183) [Link]

> Just try finding modern consumer goods- or commercially produced foods- that weren't produced by exploiting vulnerable workers. Unless you're willing to more-or-less drop out of modern society, you're benefiting from exploitation.

Actually it is no longer that bad in many areas. The main issues are becoming aware of the problem (and one can be aware of some aspects without being conscious of others), finding out where to get said products and learning to accept the price premium that often but not always goes with it. Though I think computer products are still a lot harder to do ethically than food and clothing.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 18:38 UTC (Wed) by dashesy (guest, #74652) [Link] (1 responses)

Just because we can't fix all of the problems in the world doesn't mean we have no responsibility for fixing any of them.

So is it fair to start with the easiest target?
Yes, there are people enslaved to give me this shiny phone but no one will listen to my rants. So lets rally against this genius who gave the world Linux because he acts like a grumpy grand dad on mailing lists, or the other genius (who is a noble prize winner) just to make a point. It does not matter that this technology has empowered many of the poor all over the world, has real impact on global economy, and has made the world a better place for billions of people. They are easy targets because they are decent and respectful human beings, while attacking hard targets (with real human rights violations) will result in soaring oil prices which is inconvenient.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 10, 2015 7:37 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> So is it fair to start with the easiest target?

It's called bikeshedding BTW. Looking at the length of this page...