5 ms·

Yeah. Nah. https://www.iphronline.org/turkmenistan-continued-repression-under-new-president.html https://www.iphronline.org/turkmenistan-continued-repression..

Yeah. Nah. https://www.iphronline.org/turkmenistan-continued-repression-under-new-president.html https://www.iphronline.org/turkmenistan-continued-repression... Human rights track record bad? No problem! We're all having fun right? Participate in TV show that mocks things? Ooh, no, we're the gate keeper of moral choices now.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I doubt we will be able to come to a mutual understanding, but the thought and morality held by many is as follows: I will work with a bad person to do a good thing. I will not work with a good person to do a bad thing. My participation is based on the morality of the thing that I am doing, not the other person's past or context . To put it technically, the focus is on the first order action and effect. This is in contrast to an increasingly popular moral assessment based on speculative second and third order effects.
- kortex 4y ago
  It's fine if one wants to avoid working with a good person to do a bad thing. But if you make that choice, then it's often seen as highly hypocritical to work with a bad person in any capacity. Badness is an absorbing value if you will.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  How do you apply this to things like international trade with countries committing atrocities? Obviously it’s complicated as the those who suffer with sanctions can easily be the most disadvantaged. However opening up trade with North Korea, Iran, Russia etc doesn’t seem a good way of handling the situation.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think we absolutely should work with North Korea Iran and Russia to do positive works. I would have no problem if the US collaborated on building hospitals with Russia at the same time we are also in conflict with them elsewhere. Support the good that you want to see in the world and others. Don't support the bad
- judge2020 4y ago
  If they were raising money to save puppies I'd side with you. But this is an attempt to obscure human rights atrocities, or at least using the money they gain from them to say "we hold a world record!".
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    That's basically my point in a nutshell. There are interested in highlighting fun and novel records, and fundamentally not interested highlighting atrocities and making political statements
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      But they are making a political statement. Business above ethics.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Just different ethics.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      Boiling human rights violations down to "politics" is quite a stance.
- zepolen 4y ago
  Would you help Hitler kill Stalin?
- throwaway346434 4y ago
  Going to guess you didnt read the link in a lot of detail. There are accusations of forced participations in public spectacles in there, regardless of environmental conditions (ie: heat). If they'll do that for his birthday, would they do that for a world record attempt? How much of a "good thing" is a world record attempt if the participants are compelled by the state and end up putting themselves at risk? Further, the stated rationale from Guinness is "we are a family oriented brand". I can understand them not having done much research about a dictator initially, and maybe being unaware. Only they haven't actually done anything consistent with that when it has been highlighted this individual is using their records as part of a propaganda machine in a very oppressive state. They in fact defended "their record holders". Family oriented? Or profit oriented?
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    You're making up a hypothetical situation where the record is objectively bad. Of course I agree that Guinness shouldn't participate in a force record. I'm saying that you can set aside something bad that someone has done, to do something that you believe in of itself is actually good. Your point that record setting can be secondarily used as a propaganda tool feeds directly into my point above about considerations of primary action versus secondary and tertiary actions. By that logic we shouldn't help a dictator build a school or a hospital, because it could be used for propaganda. This is what I reject
    - throwaway346434 4y ago
      There's nothing hypothetical here. No could be used, is used for propaganda. - Regime has a track record of human rights abuses - Company takes payment, sends out judge, stamps out record - Company takes a stance as "family values oriented" - Company is then subjected to press coverage pointing out they are working with human rights abuser. - The only public statement they have made is in support of their "record holders". Nothing revoked, revisited, reviewed. If they had "family values", why wouldn't they do this upon learning about who they work with? It's been a number of years, and they have done nothing. This is not the consistent position worthy of respect you think it is. You additionally keep going back to devil's advocate about choices you could make as an individual. You seem to decline to look further into what is happening between a regime lead by an individual and a for profit company, beyond holding them up as... admirable. If you did, you would now know the individual in question does things like take political prisoners, expose the population to harm (mass participation record attempts during a pandemic), spend billions on world record attempt buildings, and more. It's clear cut. The company involved is not achieving any tangible real world good. They are protecting someone who paid them. Building the world's biggest X is not providing any social value. To pretend that a giant statue record is the same as a school or hospital is disingenuous.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I doubt we will be able to come to a mutual understanding, but the thought and morality held by many is as follows: I will work with a bad person to do a good thing. I will not work with a good person to do a bad thing. My participation is based on the morality of the thing that I am doing, not the other person's past or context . To put it technically, the focus is on the first order action and effect. This is in contrast to an increasingly popular moral assessment based on speculative second and third order effects.

kortex 4y ago
It's fine if one wants to avoid working with a good person to do a bad thing. But if you make that choice, then it's often seen as highly hypocritical to work with a bad person in any capacity. Badness is an absorbing value if you will.
lostlogin 4y ago
How do you apply this to things like international trade with countries committing atrocities? Obviously it’s complicated as the those who suffer with sanctions can easily be the most disadvantaged. However opening up trade with North Korea, Iran, Russia etc doesn’t seem a good way of handling the situation.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think we absolutely should work with North Korea Iran and Russia to do positive works. I would have no problem if the US collaborated on building hospitals with Russia at the same time we are also in conflict with them elsewhere. Support the good that you want to see in the world and others. Don't support the bad
judge2020 4y ago
If they were raising money to save puppies I'd side with you. But this is an attempt to obscure human rights atrocities, or at least using the money they gain from them to say "we hold a world record!".
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  That's basically my point in a nutshell. There are interested in highlighting fun and novel records, and fundamentally not interested highlighting atrocities and making political statements
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    But they are making a political statement. Business above ethics.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Just different ethics.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    Boiling human rights violations down to "politics" is quite a stance.
zepolen 4y ago
Would you help Hitler kill Stalin?
throwaway346434 4y ago
Going to guess you didnt read the link in a lot of detail. There are accusations of forced participations in public spectacles in there, regardless of environmental conditions (ie: heat). If they'll do that for his birthday, would they do that for a world record attempt? How much of a "good thing" is a world record attempt if the participants are compelled by the state and end up putting themselves at risk? Further, the stated rationale from Guinness is "we are a family oriented brand". I can understand them not having done much research about a dictator initially, and maybe being unaware. Only they haven't actually done anything consistent with that when it has been highlighted this individual is using their records as part of a propaganda machine in a very oppressive state. They in fact defended "their record holders". Family oriented? Or profit oriented?
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  You're making up a hypothetical situation where the record is objectively bad. Of course I agree that Guinness shouldn't participate in a force record. I'm saying that you can set aside something bad that someone has done, to do something that you believe in of itself is actually good. Your point that record setting can be secondarily used as a propaganda tool feeds directly into my point above about considerations of primary action versus secondary and tertiary actions. By that logic we shouldn't help a dictator build a school or a hospital, because it could be used for propaganda. This is what I reject
  - throwaway346434 4y ago
    There's nothing hypothetical here. No could be used, is used for propaganda. - Regime has a track record of human rights abuses - Company takes payment, sends out judge, stamps out record - Company takes a stance as "family values oriented" - Company is then subjected to press coverage pointing out they are working with human rights abuser. - The only public statement they have made is in support of their "record holders". Nothing revoked, revisited, reviewed. If they had "family values", why wouldn't they do this upon learning about who they work with? It's been a number of years, and they have done nothing. This is not the consistent position worthy of respect you think it is. You additionally keep going back to devil's advocate about choices you could make as an individual. You seem to decline to look further into what is happening between a regime lead by an individual and a for profit company, beyond holding them up as... admirable. If you did, you would now know the individual in question does things like take political prisoners, expose the population to harm (mass participation record attempts during a pandemic), spend billions on world record attempt buildings, and more. It's clear cut. The company involved is not achieving any tangible real world good. They are protecting someone who paid them. Building the world's biggest X is not providing any social value. To pretend that a giant statue record is the same as a school or hospital is disingenuous.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]