3 ms·

Obviously children should not work in sweatshops and rather go to school instead, but do good numbers exist, that the "hysterical" campaigns increased those num

Obviously children should not work in sweatshops and rather go to school instead, but do good numbers exist, that the "hysterical" campaigns increased those numbers and not just put the kids on the street to do scavenging on toxic dumbsters? Well intended is not always well done and hystery is seldom helping. I remember from my youth(in germany), that work for kids was also forbidden. With some exceptions like delivering advertisement to every door. The result was, that this was a very shitty job, very badly paid (you were replaceble) and the ones illegally working for the bike shed for example, made way more money.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> do good numbers exist, that the "hysterical" campaigns increased those numbers and not just put the kids on the street to do scavenging on toxic dumbsters? So let me get this straight your hypothesis is that campaign to get kids out of sweatshops were harmfull, and the reason we stopped putting them insweatshops is not public pressure but spontanous mass enlightenment? Maybe it is your perception of these campaignes as hysterical thats wrong.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "So let me get this straight your hypothesis is that campaign to get kids out of sweatshops were harmful" My hypothesis is, that just banning kids working in sweatshop is not enough to improve living conditions for those kids, but can in fact worsen them. So I repeat my question, do you have good numbers, that the living conditions actually improved? Hysteric campaigns from the west often stop exactly there - so the companies can place a label on their product that says free of child labour, but it does not say at all, where those kids are now, but the consumers now feel better.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Do you have good numbers that being polite, reasonable and timid activism will get large corporations to give up billions in profits to please you? We've had 26 climate change conferences, the issue was known for 40 years, nobody gave a flying fuck. Some kids blocked traffic in London for 1 day, and suddenly people paid attention. How are you going to solve Nestle level of indignity and inhumanity? "Nestlé admits slavery in Thailand while fighting child labour lawsuit in Ivory Coast" If people were more hysterical, and the HQ of offending corporation burned down occasionally, then Nestle would sort itself out prompto
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      "Some kids blocked traffic in London for 1 day, and suddenly people paid attention." Yeah, I know. We have the same in germany. The common people now do pay attention to the road blockers and want them all jailed as terrorists. I just do not see, how this will help the cause. "If people were more hysterical, and the HQ of offending corporation burned down occasionally, then Nestle would sort itself out prompto" Yes, they would simply tighten up security. Rage is just rage, it does not solve anything, unless it is channeled constructivly. Lynch mobs just create a state of fear and people driven by fear seldom act smart. We do need the rage to act, but just acting does not improve anything. It is the right act, that can improve. There was this big rage about poverty and exploitation that lead to socialism. But do you really think, that the socialist states improved anything? I was born into such a state. I do not think so. They were worse for the workers and worse for the environment.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > But do you really think, that the socialist states improved anything? For some it did. In many places socialism was replacing some form of tyrany, foreign tyrany or feudalism, so it was hard to make things worse. Before the revolutions some of my ancesteors were literally property. They were serfs, with all the fun bits like regular whippings, and living in a wooden hut. They went to nirmal-ish 2nd world life. The other side of my family had someone who was repressed, i.e. dissapeared. Today suffragettes are universally praised and noone remmbers that they invented the letter bomb. I don't advocate violence, but if you want a social movement to suceed, it has to have some teeth and power, either through court, money or civil disobedience.
        hutzlibu 4y ago
        "Before the revolutions some of my ancesteors were literally property. They were serfs, with all the fun bits like regular whippings, and living in a wooden hut. They went to nirmal-ish 2nd world life" Before the revolution in russia, there were indeed quite some slaves. After the revolution, there were only slaves. Someone who is locked in and cannot leave the country and has otherwise little freedom to move and act, is a slave by my definition, so for me there was no overall improvement, rather the contrary. "I don't advocate violence, but if you want a social movement to suceed, it has to have some teeth and power, either through court, money or civil disobedience." I think it mainly needs to have a clear vision of what to achieve, if it wants to achieve that goal and not just blow of steam and create drama. So, I am not saying, that blocking roads for example, is always bad, if it creates necessary attention to get a important message across. But what exactly is the message of extinction rebellion? We are all doomed, if we don't stop consuming so much? Because this is the message people are getting. This is not helping the common people, who struggle daily to feed their family - and if those people have to fear of loosing their job, because they missed work because of a road block, then they certainly will not join the movement. If you want to convince people, you have to provide solutions. Green tech is a solution, but activism alone can only bring awareness towards it and not solve anything by its own. Otherwise I would join the road blocks.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> do good numbers exist, that the "hysterical" campaigns increased those numbers and not just put the kids on the street to do scavenging on toxic dumbsters? So let me get this straight your hypothesis is that campaign to get kids out of sweatshops were harmfull, and the reason we stopped putting them insweatshops is not public pressure but spontanous mass enlightenment? Maybe it is your perception of these campaignes as hysterical thats wrong.

hutzlibu 4y ago
"So let me get this straight your hypothesis is that campaign to get kids out of sweatshops were harmful" My hypothesis is, that just banning kids working in sweatshop is not enough to improve living conditions for those kids, but can in fact worsen them. So I repeat my question, do you have good numbers, that the living conditions actually improved? Hysteric campaigns from the west often stop exactly there - so the companies can place a label on their product that says free of child labour, but it does not say at all, where those kids are now, but the consumers now feel better.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Do you have good numbers that being polite, reasonable and timid activism will get large corporations to give up billions in profits to please you? We've had 26 climate change conferences, the issue was known for 40 years, nobody gave a flying fuck. Some kids blocked traffic in London for 1 day, and suddenly people paid attention. How are you going to solve Nestle level of indignity and inhumanity? "Nestlé admits slavery in Thailand while fighting child labour lawsuit in Ivory Coast" If people were more hysterical, and the HQ of offending corporation burned down occasionally, then Nestle would sort itself out prompto
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "Some kids blocked traffic in London for 1 day, and suddenly people paid attention." Yeah, I know. We have the same in germany. The common people now do pay attention to the road blockers and want them all jailed as terrorists. I just do not see, how this will help the cause. "If people were more hysterical, and the HQ of offending corporation burned down occasionally, then Nestle would sort itself out prompto" Yes, they would simply tighten up security. Rage is just rage, it does not solve anything, unless it is channeled constructivly. Lynch mobs just create a state of fear and people driven by fear seldom act smart. We do need the rage to act, but just acting does not improve anything. It is the right act, that can improve. There was this big rage about poverty and exploitation that lead to socialism. But do you really think, that the socialist states improved anything? I was born into such a state. I do not think so. They were worse for the workers and worse for the environment.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > But do you really think, that the socialist states improved anything? For some it did. In many places socialism was replacing some form of tyrany, foreign tyrany or feudalism, so it was hard to make things worse. Before the revolutions some of my ancesteors were literally property. They were serfs, with all the fun bits like regular whippings, and living in a wooden hut. They went to nirmal-ish 2nd world life. The other side of my family had someone who was repressed, i.e. dissapeared. Today suffragettes are universally praised and noone remmbers that they invented the letter bomb. I don't advocate violence, but if you want a social movement to suceed, it has to have some teeth and power, either through court, money or civil disobedience.
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        "Before the revolutions some of my ancesteors were literally property. They were serfs, with all the fun bits like regular whippings, and living in a wooden hut. They went to nirmal-ish 2nd world life" Before the revolution in russia, there were indeed quite some slaves. After the revolution, there were only slaves. Someone who is locked in and cannot leave the country and has otherwise little freedom to move and act, is a slave by my definition, so for me there was no overall improvement, rather the contrary. "I don't advocate violence, but if you want a social movement to suceed, it has to have some teeth and power, either through court, money or civil disobedience." I think it mainly needs to have a clear vision of what to achieve, if it wants to achieve that goal and not just blow of steam and create drama. So, I am not saying, that blocking roads for example, is always bad, if it creates necessary attention to get a important message across. But what exactly is the message of extinction rebellion? We are all doomed, if we don't stop consuming so much? Because this is the message people are getting. This is not helping the common people, who struggle daily to feed their family - and if those people have to fear of loosing their job, because they missed work because of a road block, then they certainly will not join the movement. If you want to convince people, you have to provide solutions. Green tech is a solution, but activism alone can only bring awareness towards it and not solve anything by its own. Otherwise I would join the road blocks.